Liberation News Service

The chaos in Iraq "was not a miscalculation. It was simply negligence on the part of the president," Clark said.

Well, yes, the LNS Editor-in-Chief still considers
himself a New Yorker, even though he has lived on the
Left Coast for 25 years...New Yorkers are experts at
"smelling a rat." The sewers are full of
them...Hundreds of thousands of America's SILENCED
MAJORITY marched in the streets of NYC on Sunday,
drawing a magical circle of protest around the Brown
Shirt rally at Madison for-once-truly-SQUARE
Garden...LNS Foreign Correspondent Dunston Woods has
verified the turn-out from his Pacific Rim post, here
at home, of course, the "US mainstream news media" is
incapable of counting above "tens of thousands." There
are two boons to the OBSCENITY that is the 2004 RNC,
it provides a chilling glimpse further down the
alternate timeline for those who might be toying with
the notion of throwing their vote away on the
shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader, AND it
should bring the Bush abomination's pre-9/11
negligence and post-9/11 incompetence into sharp
focus, i.e. with Bush-Cheney lathering themselves in
the blood and ash of 9/11 this week, how could any
reasonable person fault Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
and/or Gen. Wesley Clark (D-NATO) for doing what the
LNS Recently suggested -- pulling out the 9/11
Commission Report on the stump, and reading from it to
throngs and to the reporters *covering* the campaign.
The 9/11 Commission Report, as weak-kneed as it is,
still contains enough DAMNING evidence to consigh the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident, the VICE _resident and their national
insecurity team to political oblivion...America's most
credible political pollster, Zogby, reports that "on
the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking
9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of
New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens
overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance
that attacks were planned on or around September 11,
2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
(http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855)
Meanwhile, the increasingy unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident, although perhaps *feeling good*
out on the stump, is nevertheless increasingly
unhinged and shrinking incredibly...The other day he
described his foolish military adventure in Iraq as a
"catastrophic success," soon afterwards in an in-depth
interview with another heavy lifter, NotBeSeen's Matt
Lauer, the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident, having already botched, bungled,
misdiagnosed and even mis-named the "war on terror,"
has now declared it unwinnable.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040830/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_vote_bush_040830222544


Democrats pounce on Bush for declaring 'war on terror' unwinnable

Mon Aug 30, 6:25 PM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My
Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news -
web sites) said in an interview that he does not
believe the US-led war on terror can be won -- a
statement that opposition Democrats exploited with
great gusto.

Bush was asked in an interview on NBC television
whether the United States can win the war on terror.
"I don't think you can win it," he answered.

Despite the explanation that followed, opposition
Democrats -- hungry to sink Bush's 2004 re-election
aspirations -- immediately pounced on those seven
words.

Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s vice
presidential candidate, John Edwards (news - web
sites), bashed Bush for being defeatist while on the
campaign trail in North Carolina.

"After months of listening to the Republicans base
their campaign on their singular ability to win the
war on terror, the president now says we can't win the
war on terrorism," Edwards said in a speech in
Wilmington.

"This is no time to declare defeat," he said.

It is the second time in four days that Bush has been
taken to task over his own remarks.

In an interview published Friday with The New York
Times, Bush said he made a "miscalculation of what the
conditions would be" in Iraq (news - web sites) after
the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web
sites).

And the strong anti-US insurgency in Iraq was an
unintended byproduct of a "swift victory," he said.

Bush however refused to go into detail on what went
wrong, saying that it was a task best left to
historians.

The Democrats reacted quickly. "The president has
finally abandoned his stubborn refusal to admit his
failure to plan," said Rand Beers, Kerry's adviser on
national security issues. "Now he must both plan and
act."

Retired army general Wesley Clark (news - web sites),
a former Democratic presidential candidate, took issue
with Bush's Monday statements in an interview with Fox
News. "I believe this war is winnable -- we won the
Cold War," he said.

Clark, a the former supreme allied commander in
Europe, expanded on his views in a joint telephone
conference call with Democratic Senator Joe Biden.

The chaos in Iraq "was not a miscalculation. It was
simply negligence on the part of the president," Clark
said. "It's a major mistake."

Clark said that the war on terrorists "motivated by
Islamic extremist ideology is winnable, by going
after, attacking and defeating the specific groups
that attack us, cutting off their ability to recruit,
(and) defeating the claims of their ideology."

It was also important to strengthen homeland security
and keep militants from accessing weapons of mass
destruction, Clark said, adding that the Bush
administration's approach to the problem "is
fundamentally flawed."

Biden also took a swipe at Bush. "If we do not unite
the world in the resolution that the tactics of
Islamic terrorists are totally unacceptable, then we
will be fulfilling the prophecy of President Bush
(news - web sites) which is we can't totally win the
war," he said.

In Wilmington, Edwards reminded his audience that the
last time the United States "collided with an enemy
that wanted to destroy our way of life was at the end
of World War II."

"Imagine if President Truman had responded to the Iron
Curtain with a wall of indifference? Imagine if he had
turned his back on allies that had stood by our side?
Imagine if he had refused to lead the effort to
rebuild our former enemies, Germany and Japan?" he
asked.

Pentagon spy investigation goes beyond Israeli connection

Yes, there are many patriot professionals in
Beltwayistan, working in the intelligence, law
enforcement and DoD communities, who are DISGUSTED and
ENRAGED by the Bush abomination's numerous national
security blunders, debacles and betrayals...And they
are fighting back, by enforcing long-standing laws of
the US federal government and upholding oaths sworn to
the US Constitution...

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Aug/20040829News021.asp

Pentagon spy investigation goes beyond Israeli connection

Knight Ridder Newspapers
Published Sunday, August 29, 2004
WASHINGTON - An FBI investigation into the handling of
highly classified material by Pentagon civilians is
broader than previously reported and goes well beyond
allegations that a single analyst gave a top-secret
Iran policy document to Israel, three sources familiar
with the investigation said yesterday.

The investigation, which has been going on for more
than two years, also has focused on other civilians in
the secretary of defense’s office, said the sources,
who spoke on condition they not be identified but who
have first-hand knowledge of the subject.

In addition, one said, FBI investigators in recent
weeks have conducted interviews to determine whether
Pentagon officials gave classified U.S. intelligence
to a leading Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National
Congress, which might in turn have passed it on to
Iran. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has denied his group
was involved in any wrongdoing.

The link, if any, between the two leak investigations
remains unclear.

But they both center on the office of Undersecretary
of Defense Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s No. 3
official.

Feith’s office has been the source of numerous
controversies over the last three years. His office
had close ties to Chalabi and was responsible for
post-war Iraq planning that the administration has now
acknowledged was inadequate. Before the war, Feith and
his aides pushed the now-discredited theory that
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was in league with
al-Qaida.

No one is known to have been charged with any
wrongdoing in the investigation.

The Israeli government yesterday strenuously denied it
had spied on the United States. The American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel
lobby that top officials said is suspected of serving
as a conduit to Israel for the analyst, also has
denied any wrongdoing.

That analyst, Larry Franklin, works for Feith’s
deputy, William Luti, and served as an important
advisor on Iran issues to Feith and Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Franklin, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst
who lives in West Virginia, could not be reached for
comment yesterday.

Two sources disclosed yesterday that the information
believed to have been passed to Israel was the draft
of a top-secret presidential order on Iran policy.
Because of disagreements over Iran policy among
President George W. Bush’s advisors, the document is
not believed to have ever been completed.

Having a draft of the document - which some Pentagon
officials might have believed was insufficiently tough
toward Iran - would have allowed Israel to influence
U.S. policy while it was still being made. Iran is
among Israel’s main security concerns.

Copyright © 2004 The Columbia Daily Tribune. All
Rights Reserved.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes: "I'm very ashamed"

You think there is freedom of the press in this
country? You think our "journalists" are non-partisan
in the appetite for scandal? Wake-up or lose this
Republic. The Emperor has no uniform...But the "US
mainstream news media," in particular the major
network and cable news organizations, refuse to
acknowledge that a naked chickenhawk deserter is
posing as Commander-in-Chief of the US
military...Another name for the John P. O'Neill Wall
of Heroes: former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes...Get out
the vote, subscribe to Salon, throw your TVs into
Boston harbor, follow John Zogby's tracking poll for
the "Battleground" states, do your Electoral College
math, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) is leading
in this national referendum on the CREDIBILTIY,
COMPETENCE and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged
and incredibly shrinking _resident...There is an
Electoral Uprising coming in November 2004, and
whether it is thwarted or not, we are on the verge of
*unCivil* war in America, and we need a Lincoln...JFK
is that man...

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/27/barnes/

Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes: "I'm very ashamed"
The former Texas official who got George Bush into the
National Guard apologizes for making sure that young
men with important "family names" did not have to
fight in Vietnam.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jeff Horwitz

Aug. 27, 2004 | Another bombshell in the battle over
Vietnam service that has been raging in the 2004
presidential race exploded on the Web Friday. In a
video originally posted on the Web by a pro-Kerry
organization in Austin, Texas, Ben Barnes, a former
lieutenant governor of Texas, apologized for his role
in getting a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air
National Guard while young men who were not from
prominent or wealthy families "died in Vietnam."

"Let's talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush,
and I know them both," said Barnes in the video, which
was filmed at a gathering of about 200 Kerry
supporters in Austin on May 27. "I got a young man
named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard
when I was lieutenant governor, and I'm not
necessarily proud of that. But I did it. I got a lot
of other people in the National Guard because I
thought that was what people should do when you're in
office, and you help a lot of rich people."

"And I walked to the Vietnam Memorial the other day,"
Barnes continued, "and I looked at the names of the
people that died in Vietnam, and I became more ashamed
of myself than I have ever been, because it was the
worst thing I ever did, was help a lot of wealthy
supporters and a lot of people who had family names of
importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very
sorry about that, and I'm very ashamed, and I
apologize to you as voters of Texas."

Why Did Department of Justice Censor Its Diversity
Report?

Republican Party Convention Preview: Diversity On and
Off Stage

Mind Your E-mail Manners

Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.

Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.

Barnes then condemned the Republican attacks on John
Kerry's war service: "And I tell you that for the
Republicans to jump on John Kerry and say that he is
not a patriot after he went to Vietnam and was shot at
and fought for our freedom and came back here and
protested against the war, he's a flip-flopper, let me
tell you: John Kerry is a 100 times better patriot
than George Bush or Dick Cheney."

The video of Barnes was filmed by Todd Phelan and Mike
Nicholson, organizers of a political group called
Austin4Kerry. Phelan is currently an organizer for the
Travis County Democrats. The video first appeared on
the Austin4Kerry Web site on June 25, but was widely
overlooked until Friday. The video also includes a
separate interview conducted by the same two
filmmakers in which Barnes speaks with admiration
about Kerry's valor.

Phelan and Nicholson recall they were surprised by the
candor of Barnes' remarks while they were filming him
at the rally. "To be honest with you, my eyes lit up
instantaneously," Phelan told Salon. "I looked at
Mike, he looked at me, and it was like 'Did he just
say that?'" But at the time, said Phelan, they did not
think the video would create a stir. He suggested that
the video suddenly became a Web phenomenon because of
the heated swift boat controversy that has been fanned
by supporters of Bush.

Barnes' story about Bush and the Air National Guard
first broke in 1999 as the then Texas governor was
mounting his first campaign for the presidency. Bush
insisted at the time that neither he nor his father
sought Barnes' assistance. "I can tell you what
happened," said Bush. "Nothing happened. My Guard unit
was looking for pilots and I flew for the Guard. I'm
proud of my service and any allegation that my dad
asked for special favors is simply not true ... I
didn't ask anybody to help get me to the Guard
either."

Barnes said at the time that it was a wealthy Bush
family friend, a Houston oilman named Sidney Adger,
who came to him with the request to help the younger
Bush.

[Note: Barnes' speech can only be viewed on Salon
using Windows Media Player. If you do not have it, you
can download it for free here.]

salon.com

Kerry campaign attacks President over 'war honour he did not earn'

The Emperor has no uniform, and the "US mainstream
news media," particularly the major network and cable
news organizations, refuse to tell the US electorate
that there is a naked, and disturbed, deserter
wandering around the White House posing as the
Commander-in-chief...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/29/wbush129.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/29/ixworld.html

Kerry campaign attacks President over 'war honour he did not earn'
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 29/08/2004)

Supporters of Senator John Kerry yesterday warned of
"blowback" against President George W Bush for the
political "attack ads" by the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth which have damaged Mr Kerry's election campaign.

After weeks of denigration of the Democratic
challenger's Vietnam war record, Mr Kerry's backers
have responded with allegations against the President
- including the claim that he was once photographed in
uniform wearing a medal ribbon he had not earned.

As polls showed that Mr Bush had edged ahead of Mr
Kerry for the first time, a pro-Kerry organisation
labelled the President an "impostor" over the
photograph, taken in 1970 and discovered in his
father's Presidential Library in Houston, Texas.

The ribbon is an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award -
which was not awarded to the 111th Fighter Intercept
Squadron in which Mr Bush served until 1975, five
years after the photograph was taken, according to the
group US War Report.

"Why is this fraud important? Because it betrays the
Honour Code that every officer learns and carries
throughout his or her career," said Walt Starr who
investigated the medals for the group. Separately a
new book, Deserter, by Ian Williams, a British-born
author, challenges the President with details of how
he used his father's influence to join the Texas Air
National Guard as a trainee pilot, thereby avoiding
service in Vietnam, and then allegedly disappeared
from his base without fulfilling his duty.

"Bush has set himself up, and now that the issue is
coming up he is going to have to answer questions on
his own documented record," said Williams.

Williams's book offers evidence that Mr Bush stopped
training in 1972, and failed to take an annual
physical examination demanded of all pilots. Deserter
also claims that Mr Bush failed to turn up for duty in
Alabama, an omission which could have resulted in a
charge of being absent without leave, or even
desertion.

MoveOn.com, an independent organisation, has repeated
the claim in television advertisements that Mr Bush
abandoned his military post and the American media has
taken up the story. "Alabama is where serious
questions arise over whether or not Bush fulfilled his
obligations to the Guard," said William McTavish, a
Republican, and editor of the Washington on-line
political magazine Capitol Hill Blue.

Mr Bush has strongly denied abandoning his duties. He
says he left his Texan unit after requesting transfer
to Alabama, so that he could also work on a political
campaign.

Asked about the medal ribbon, a White House spokesman
said he could not respond until the record had been
checked.

Meanwhile a new Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
television campaign shows veterans accusing Mr Kerry
of "treachery" for testifying that atrocities were
committed in Vietnam. Williams warned: "There will be
blowback, because it is a documented fact that
atrocities occurred, and also that Kerry did not
accuse all Vietnam vets of committing them."
Related reports

Giuliani gives Bush a boost

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy

Yes, it is incomprehensible that Condescenia Rice and
John Ashcroft still have their jobs, knowing what we
now in the wake of the 9/11 Commission hearings, and
in particular the testimony of Richard Clark. Yes, it
is incomprehensible that Donald Rumsfeld still has his
job in the wake of Abu Ghraib and in the midst of the
Mega-Mogadishu that is Iraq...But there is still
hope...There are *many* patriot professionals in
Beltwayistan, in the intelligence community, in the
law enfocrement community, in the foreign policy
establishmnt, in the US military (both active and
retired) who want to bring the Bush cabal and its
loose neo-con cannons down -- politically -- and save
the Republic and the Western Alliance...this criminal
investigation of treason and espionage is another
example, like the Plame investigation and the Chalabi
revelations, of patriot professionals at work on an
operational level enforcing the laws of the US and
serving the US Constitution in a strange, tragic
interlude in our history...Here is the story that CSB
broke...The LNS has tagged on a piece from the
Guardian, giving some background...

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case

Aug. 27, 2004

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy

(Photo: CBS/AP)

The FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the
suspected mole supplied Israel with classified
materials that include secret White House policy
deliberations on Iran.

The FBI investigation is headed by Dave Szady.
(Photo: CBS)

(CBS) CBS News has learned that the FBI has a
full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is
about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone
agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but
for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of
Defense at the Pentagon.

60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI
believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected
mole supplied Israel with classified materials that
include secret White House policy deliberations on
Iran.

At the heart of the investigation are two people who
work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has
involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and
photography that CBS News was told document the
passing of classified information from the mole, to
the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.

CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy,
described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned
over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward
Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S.
policy-makers were still debating the policy."

This put the Israelis, according to one source,
"inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try
to influence the outcome."

The case raises another concern among investigators:
Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence
U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?

With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and
Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit
within the Defense Department tasked with helping
develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been made aware
of the case. The government notified AIPAC today that
it wants information about the two employees and their
contacts with a person at the Pentagon.

AIPAC told CBS News it is cooperating with the
government and has hired outside counsel. It denies
any wrongdoing by the organization or any of its
employees.

An Israeli spokesman said, "We categorically deny
these allegations. They are completely false and
outrageous." The suspected spy has not returned
repeated phone calls from CBS News.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Comment

--

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1291894,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go
again

US claims over Iran's nuclear programme sound eerily
familiar

Jonathan Steele
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian

History is beginning to repeat itself, this time over
Iran. Just two years after the notorious Downing
Street dossier on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of
mass destruction and the first efforts to get United
Nations approval for war, Washington is trying to
create similar pressures for action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence
material which puts the target country in the worst
possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in
"non- compliance", thereby claiming justification for
going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support
for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a
clique of American neoconservatives whose real agenda
is regime change.

The immediate focus for action against Iran is the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which has produced
five reports on Iran in the last 14 months. Part of
the UN, with an international board which acts like a
mini security council, the IAEA's reports have raised
questions about Iran's professedly civilian nuclear
programme and its desire to create its own fuel cycle
which could eventually be used to produce bombs.

To satisfy its critics, Iran agreed last year to allow
so-called intrusive inspections. As a
confidence-building measure, it also stopped enriching
uranium. In a few days' time the IAEA will issue a new
report, and it is its wording which is causing the
latest flurry. John Bolton, the Bush administration's
point-man, has been rushing round Europe claiming the
evidence of sinister Iranian behaviour is clear, even
though the IAEA has consistently made no such
judgment. It has called for more transparency, but
prefers to keep probing and, like Hans Blix and the UN
weapons inspectors in Iraq in 2003, insists it needs
more time.

Advertiser links
Volunteer Work Abroad
Experience a country from a whole new perspective by
signing...

crossculturalsolutions.org

Orphan Helpers
Make a difference in the life of a desperate child
and...

orphanhelpers.com

Volunteers at Free Medicine Program
Volunteers are needed to help people across America
afford...

freemedicineprogram.com
Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that
nothing wrong has been found, close the dossier and
let Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology -
with the safeguards that go with it - which countries
like Germany and France have promised.

Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have
intelligence which the IAEA's inspectors don't. After
the fiasco of the US's pre-war material on Iraq, he
has not started to trumpet US sources. But he is
choosing to interpret the available knowledge as
harshly as possible. He is also close to the
Washington hardliners in the Project for the New
American Century, who created the doctrine of
pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states and who
favour regime change to deal with Islamist
fundamentalism.

Norman Podhoretz, the arch-conservative editor of
Commentary magazine, one of their house journals, said
last week: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran
at this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if
it happened."

There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two
years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in
going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say
Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the
security council for a decision on sanctions or other
stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move
to the UN.

Second, even the US (Podhoretz excepted) is not
talking about a full-scale US invasion with ground
troops. It has too many soldiers tied up in Iraq and
Afghanistan to spare many for a third campaign. The
talk is of using US special forces or airstrikes to
destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, or giving a green
light to Israel to do it. Slightly less impatiently,
there are hints that the CIA will step up its campaign
to overthrow the regime in Tehran by encouraging
anti-government TV and radio broadcasts from abroad
and infiltrating opposition movements.

The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's
stance. Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam
Hussein, Britain is siding this time with France and
Germany. It is part of a "troika" which promotes
constructive engagement rather than confrontation with
Iran. Their dialogue ran into a sticky phase this
summer with allegations of bad faith on both sides,
but the three European states are willing to keep it
going.

They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq
war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order
make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous
and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air-strikes on
Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and
harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle
East, especially if Washington subcontracted the
attacks to the Israeli air force.

Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on
nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different.
People of all political persuasions in Tehran support
their country's right to have nuclear power, and
probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is
not the most intelligent way to persuade them
otherwise.

The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's
unfair elections, as well as the certainty that
President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less
liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of
dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the
emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in
the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal
with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven
years. Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq
war who are influenced by nationalism and economic
imperatives more than the revolutionary Islamic
ideology of the Khomeini generation. They want better
relations with the west.

Britain's difference with Washington on Iran is
remarkable. It matters more than the better-publicised
splits on the Kyoto environmental protocol or the
international criminal court. But does Britain's
alignment with France and Germany on Iran mean that
Tony Blair has really parted with George Bush on a key
geo-political and military issue? Or has he not yet
spotted that what he regards as the lily-livered
flunkies in the Foreign Office are up to their
"realist" tricks again? They also opposed the invasion
of Iraq until Ol' Laser-Eyes in Downing Street focused
on the file.

We will know the answer after the US election. Even if
Kerry wins, European diplomats expect no major change
in Washington's policy to wards Iran. Like Cuba, Iran
produces special symptoms of irrationality (because of
the unrevenged wound to US pride the mullahs caused
when they held diplomats hostage in the embassy a
quarter of a century ago).

So how will Blair cuddle up to the new president? What
easier way than to break with France and Germany and
show Kerry that, whether there's a Democrat or a
Republican in the White House, Britain's prime
minister is still best friends when it comes to being
tough with Islamist bullies and taking the brave and
moral route to war? Inshallah, no.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk

Wall St fundraisers shy away from Bush

Greater Greenspania in turmoil...

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ce667ab6-f78b-11d8-afe6-00000e2511c8.html

Wall St fundraisers shy away from Bush
By David Wighton in New York and James Harding in
Washington
Published: August 26 2004 20:58 | Last updated: August
26 2004 20:58

Wall Street's enthusiasm for US President George W.
Bush appears to have cooled as the presidential race
tightens and concerns grow about foreign policy and
fiscal deficits.

Some leading fundraisers of Mr Bush's re-election bid
have stopped active campaigning and others privately
voice reservations.

The New York financial community is expected to give
the Republicans a lavish welcome when the president's
party arrives for its national convention next week.
Wall Street has been a big contributor to Mr Bush's
record-breaking re-election fund.

But one senior Wall Street figure, once talked of as a
possible Bush cabinet member, said that he and other
prominent Republicans had been raising money with
increasing reluctance. “Many are doing so with a heavy
heart and some not at all.” He cited foreign policy
and the ballooning federal deficit as Wall Street
Republicans' main concerns.

Hedging bets on Wall Street

On Monday evening, amid the plush surroundings of the
Rainbow Room on the top floor of that defiant monument
to New York opulence, Rockefeller Plaza, the
rainmakers will mingle with the lawmakers.

Go there


A Republican in the financial services industry
concurs. “Many of them may be maxed out,” he said,
referring to campaign contributions that have hit the
legal ceiling, “but they are backing away from Bush.”

The deficit has been criticised by Peter Peterson,
chairman and co-founder of Blackstone Group, the New
York investment firm, and former commerce secretary
under President Richard Nixon. In his new book,
Running on Empty, he accuses both parties of
recklessness but attacks the Republican leadership for
a “new level of fiscal irresponsibility”.

One New York dinner in June 2003 raised more than $4m,
partly thanks to the efforts of Stan O'Neal, chief
executive of Merrill Lynch. Yet Mr O'Neal has done no
fundraising for the campaign at all since then and
friends say he is not supporting Mr Bush. “He is best
described as independent,” said one. Another senior
Wall Street figure, who has given money to the
campaign, said he was among many Wall Street bosses
who were impressed with Mr Bush's handling of the
September 11 attacks. “But since then, I have lost
faith over foreign policy and tax,” he said.

Even those who are campaigning for Mr Bush sound
increasingly defensive. “Whether or not you like him,
you can't change leaders during a war,” said the head
of one Wall Street firm.

Bush Economy: Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row, More Also Lack Health Coverage

What they won' tell you:

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html


washingtonpost.com
Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row, More Also Lack Health Coverage
By Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A01

The number of Americans living in poverty or lacking
health insurance rose for the third straight year in
2003, the Census Bureau announced yesterday,
reflecting a job market that failed to match otherwise
strong economic growth.

Overall, the median household income remained stagnant
at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to
12.5 percent -- 35.9 million people -- last year, from
12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for
the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline,
and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million
children lived in poverty.

As expected, the number of people without health
insurance grew last year, to 45 million -- an increase
to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent. White adults,
primarily in the South, accounted for most of the
increase. The proportion of people receiving health
insurance through an employer fell to 60.4 percent,
the lowest level in a decade, from 61.3 percent.

The census report provided hard numbers to anecdotal
evidence that the recent recovery has missed certain
regions and segments of the population. An additional
1.3 million Americans fell below the poverty line in
2003, as incomes dipped for the poorest 20 percent of
the population. An additional 1.4 million became newly
uninsured.

"This recovery has failed to reach those in the bottom
half," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist with
the Economic Policy Institute.

As President Bush prepared to head to New York for the
Republican National Convention, yesterday's data gave
Democrats an opening for picking at his perceived
weakness on traditional bread-and-butter issues.

"While George Bush tries to convince America's
families that we're turning the corner, slogans and
empty rhetoric can't hide the real story," said Sen.
John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential
nominee. "Under George Bush's watch, America's
families are falling further behind."

Bush, campaigning in New Mexico, had no comment.
Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans said the census
data looked "backward in time at an economy that was
substantially weaker" than it is today. He predicted
that the numbers will improve as Bush "continues to
press extremely hard to create the right conditions
and business climate" for job growth and broader
health coverage.

Yet the census report stood in sharp contrast to an
economy and a stock market that grew briskly in 2003,
especially in the second half of the year. "The impact
of a persistent jobless recovery is all over these
results," Bernstein said.

With fewer people working and fewer small businesses
offering health coverage, the uninsured figure is
likely to remain high until the unemployment rate
drops to about 4 percent, said Paul Fronstin, a senior
research associate at the Employee Benefit Research
Institute.

"It's not just about how many people have jobs, but
it's about the kind of jobs they have," he said. "Even
though people are employed, they are less likely to
have access to coverage."

In this region, more people were without health
coverage in 2003 than in 2002. In Virginia, the
uninsured rate rose to 13.3 percent from 12.2 percent;
in both Maryland and the District, it rose to 13.6
percent from 12.8 percent.

The national poverty rate declined from 1993 to 2000,
when it reached a low of 11.3 percent. In the next
three years, 4.3 million more people fell below the
poverty line, and the median household income dropped
by more than $1,500 in inflation-adjusted terms.

Locally, poverty rates rose in Virginia to 10 percent
from 8.9 percent, and in Maryland to 8 percent from
7.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau's two-year
averaging. In the District, it declined 0.7 percent,
but, at 16.9 percent, it remained higher than the
national average.

The poverty line is not a single, consistent number;
it varies with time and family size. In 2003, the
average poverty line for an individual was $9,393. For
a family of four, it was $18,810. Despite the recent
increase in poverty rates, the rates remained lower
than the average for both the 1980s and the 1990s.

Economic issues -- including the availability and
affordability of health insurance -- remain top
concerns among voters. In several recent Washington
Post and Gallup surveys, voters gave the president no
better than a 51 percent approval rating on his
handling of the economy, and in a head-to-head matchup
with Kerry on economic matters, Bush trailed 41
percent to his challenger's 52 percent.

Yesterday's report showed that several swing states
saw an increase in the poverty rate, the percentage of
uninsured or both -- including Iowa, Michigan,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

"It's definitely not the news that the president was
hoping for," said Rea S. Hederman Jr., senior policy
analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Children made up an especially large segment of the
newly impoverished, accounting for more than half of
the overall increase as 733,000 more youngsters
slipped below the poverty line. Similarly, the number
of families in poverty headed by a single mother
jumped 1.5 percent, to 3.9 million.

Sheldon H. Danziger, co-director of the National
Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the
rise in poverty represents fallout from the 1996
Welfare Reform Act. Because the new policy shifted
government benefits to reward those who work, single
mothers who were employed received additional
assistance when jobs were plentiful but are struggling
now that the economy has 1.2 million fewer jobs.

"They did fine when the economy was booming, and even
in the early part of the recession," he said. "But now
there's been an increase in the number of women who
have no work and no welfare."

Hederman disagreed with Danziger, noting that the
child poverty rate, although up for the year at 17.6
percent, is still well below the 20.5 percent it hit
in 1996.

"You've seen a lot of people who left poverty and who
haven't returned back to it even after the economic
downturn," he said.

Single mothers were not helped by the fact that the
earnings of women overall suffered, declining by 0.6
percent. Women made 76 cents for every dollar earned
by men in 2003, compared with 77 cents in 2002. Others
who felt the sting included Hispanics, whose median
income dropped 2.6 percent last year.

Viewing the increase in poverty by race, Asian
Americans were hit hardest, but census officials said
the rise appeared to be a statistical anomaly
resulting from a small sample size.

Since 2000, the number of uninsured Americans has
grown by 5.2 million people, or 13 percent.

"The latest data indicate that loss of insurance is of
particular concern for middle-income and low-wage
workers," said Karen Davis, president of the
nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation
that studies health and social policy trends.

More Americans were enrolled in government health
programs such as Medicaid and Medicare than at any
time in the past two decades. Last year, 26.6 percent
of the population was covered by government health
insurance, the highest percentage since 1995.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program appeared
to be the leading reason the number of youngsters
without coverage did not rise, even though millions
more fell into poverty.

At the libertarian Cato Institute, Michael Cannon, the
director of health studies, attributed the rise in
uninsured to government regulation. Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said it was the
Senate's fault, even though Republicans control both
houses of Congress.

"The big failure is not what is happening in the
administration. We are doing everything we can," he
said in a conference call. "Individuals in the United
States Senate have failed to adopt the president's
proposals dealing with health care."

Proposals to cap malpractice awards, to provide tax
credits for individuals purchasing insurance and to
create small-business insurance purchasing pools "show
a president that is leading and a Congress that is
not," he said.

The Census Bureau normally releases its income,
poverty and health insurance figures in September. It
moved the release date up a month to make it coincide
with the release of a separate set of data. Democrats
have charged that the timing is suspicious, given that
many people take vacations in August and could miss
the bad news.

Senior polling analyst Christopher Mustie contributed
to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

"Here's the real act of cowardice..."

As usual, in the Orwellian alternate universe in which we have all languished since the coup in 2000, the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident and the "vast reich wing conspiracy" and the major network news organizations that are propping them up want to argue about something other than what this argument is about, in this instance they want to turn this firestorm over character, character assasination and false accusations into a struggle over the campaign finance laws...Well, of course, there are two issues...The principle issue is the FALSEHOOD of the SBVT ads, and the secondary issue is whether or not campaign finance laws have been violated...Most people in America now know about the SBVT character assasination ads about Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta), but how many people in America know about these ads from our side attacking the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident? Where are they? How come their content is not being heatedly debated? How come no one from the Kerry-Edwards campaign has resigned to avoid controversy (so far two individuals have quit the Bush-Cheney campaign over allegations of impropriety)? Where is the controversy? Well, of course, the difference is that the "attack ads" from our side are FACTUAL and have not been challenged for their accuracy. No one has resigned because of them because our side is following the letter of the law. There is no moral equivalency between Move On or Media Fund and SBVT. Move On is a PAC, not a 527. Move On has hundreds of thousands of members, and has been around since the obscenity know as Ken Starr. Media Fund is a 527, but it is not runnng any ads questioning the legitimacy of medals won for courage in combat. How could it? Neither the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident nor his VICE _resident served in Vietnam. Nor have they been savaging the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident on the still unanswered questions about his stint in the Alabama Air National Guard. Although the LNS suggests that this issue be raised, but not by the Media Fund or Move On, but by the Kerry-Edwards campaign and the DNC directly. Yes, they should run an ad comparing JFK's military record with that of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident and ask the US Electorate to decide for itself, and the ad should end with "I am John Kerry and I endorse this ad!"

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://tampatrib.com/MGBF7XRQAYD.html

Smear Effort Not The Most Swift Of Ideas
DANIEL RUTH
Published: Aug 25, 2004

If the Swiftboat Veterans Shilling For Karl Rove had any less credibility they'd make Jayson Blair look like Diogenes.
Perhaps the political lesson here ought to be that if you are going to attempt to launch a cheesy smear campaign, especially against a presidential candidate, it's probably a good idea not be more tainted than Monica Lewinsky modeling for the Gap.

For weeks now, the Swiftboat Veterans For Rent have been flitting about the landscape trying to portray Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as being more gutless under fire during Vietnam than Robert Vaughan in ``The Magnificent Seven.''

Gracious, if you believed merely half of what the Swiftboat Veterans For W have been alleging, you might think Kerry had really spent the entire Vietnam War sitting around the Cote d'Azur sipping Campari and reading Marcel Proust in the original French.

Nixon Crowd

Indeed, the Swiftboat Veterans For Whatever have suggested that Kerry's Silver and Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts awarded for combat heroics are less deserved than Milli Vanilli's Grammy.

Could it be possible John ``Bring Me A Shrubbery!'' Kerry was more spineless than Monty Python's Knights of the Round Table?

Insert ``Oooooopsie!'' right about here.

For the problem with the allegations made by the Swiftboat Veterans For Bush/Cheney's Bidding is that their claims have been repeatedly exposed as having less veracity than ..., well, ``Mission Accomplished.''

The problems begin with the group's funding - $100,000-plus from Texas Republican fancy-pants Bob Perry, who has also contributed millions of dollars to the GOP across the country.

Thus we're hardly dealing with merely a civic-minded, nonpartisan group of veterans.

Next, the leader of the Swiftboat Veterans For the Lion of Crawford is led by Texas mouthpiece John O'Neill, the same John O'Neill the Nixon crowd dug up to debate Kerry, then an anti-Vietnam War activist, some 30 years ago.

Real Cowardice

As well, many of the veterans now accusing Kerry of being more of a poltroon than Barney Fife were supporters of the candidate, some as recently as a year ago.

Others have recanted their accusations against Kerry and, even more importantly, those who insist the senator was the Milo Minderbender of the Vietnam War weren't even witnesses to the events for which the various decorations were awarded.

Cue an Emily Litella ``never mind'' moment right about here.

Oh, and then there is this: Virtually every Vietnam veteran who served aboard Kerry's vessel, and/or were cheek to jowl with him in combat, have supported his version of the events attesting to his bravery under fire - including William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor who, over the weekend, refuted the attacks on the candidate's war record.

How absurd has this gotten?

After Rood pretty much showed up the smear campaign against Kerry for the smarmy right-wing propaganda effort that it is, O'Neill fumbled and bumbled away with this quote to the Chicago Tribune: ``We also stand by our judgment that while the action involved a degree of courage, it was not ... worthy of a Silver Star.''

``Degree of courage''? Since when did a political huckster like John O'Neill become the national arbiter of what constitutes courage under fire? What's next? Will O'Neill allege that if John McCain had been a better pilot he wouldn't have wound up living the life of Riley as a prisoner of war?

Here's the real act of cowardice:

Hustings thugs created a blatant special interest group that exploits Vietnam veterans who served with distinction, and who may well have a fair beef with Kerry over his antiwar activities, simply to advance the political career of a candidate who used the war himself as little more than a glorified dental plan.

Cleland to Bush: "The question is, where is George Bush's honor? The question is where is his shame?" Cleland asked. "To attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself ... in combat, regardless of the political combat involved, is disgraceful.

The Emperor has no uniform...and no shame...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082604W.shtml

CNN

Wednesday 25 August 2004

(CNN) -- Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland said Wednesday that attack ads questioning Sen. John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam were "scurrilous" and "dishonest and dishonorable" and called on President Bush to come out against them.

Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in the war, told reporters gathered at a school near Bush's Texas ranch that the commercials run by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false and that "George Bush is behind it."

"The question is, where is George Bush's honor? The question is where is his shame?" Cleland asked. "To attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself ... in combat, regardless of the political combat involved, is disgraceful."

He said he was unsuccessful in trying to deliver a letter to President Bush urging him to condemn the ads. (Text of letter)

Cleland was joined by Lt. Jim Rassmann, a former Green Beret who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star for risking his life to save Rassmann.

The letter, which Cleland said was signed by nine members of the Senate -- all veterans -- urged the president to specifically condemn the ads, saying they "represent the worst kind of politics."

After Cleland's statement, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, also a Vietnam veteran, said he was instructed by a Bush campaign aide to take Cleland's letter, but the former senator refused to give it to him.

Patterson also tried to give Cleland a letter addressed to Kerry and signed by a number of pro-Bush Vietnam veterans, including several GOP congressmen. (Text of letter)

The letter accuses Kerry of basing his campaign on his Vietnam service but then criticizing Vietnam veterans who support Bush, Patterson said. "You can't have it both ways," the letter says.

The letter signed by pro-Bush veterans said they were angry that he had never apologized for saying that U.S. troops had committed atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry has said those comments were taken out of context and that he had been quoting what veterans had told him.

"We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home," it said. Kerry became an anti-war activist upon his return from duty.

Cleland's active support for Kerry was evident when the veteran introduced the candidate's speech in acceptance of the Democratic Party's nomination in Boston last month. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the Democratic convention)

President Bush has praised Kerry's military record, saying he "served admirably," but has not directly condemned commercials by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that have attacked Kerry's war record.

He has called for such tax-exempt organizations, such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the liberal group MoveOn.org and others, to stop airing political ads.

The groups are known as 527s after the federal provision that makes them tax-exempt and allows them to accept unlimited donations. (Bush urges Kerry to condemn 527s)

The letter Cleland tried to deliver calls the ads attacks on John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and the U.S. Navy. (Kerry alleges 'fear and smear' tactics)

"Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation," the letter said.

"Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cleland.letter/index.html

Text of letter to President Bush

(CNN) -- Former Sen. Max Cleland on Wednesday attempted to deliver a letter to President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, asking him to publicly condemn recent attack ads on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The ads question Kerry's combat record in Vietnam.

Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, will deliver the letter asking Bush to condemn commercials attacking Kerry by the group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Though Bush has said Kerry "served admirably" in Vietnam, the commander in chief has not condemned the commercials.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Dear President Bush,

We, the undersigned members of the United States Senate call on you to specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry's combat record in the Vietnam War. These false charges represent the worst kind of politics, and we agree with both Senator John McCain and Senator Kerry that a firmly established service record in the United States Military is fully above reproach. As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination, and publicly condemn it.

Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned. This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot. The veterans serving today should never have to expect this kind of treatment, when the wars of their generation have passed into history. We brothers and sisters in arms expect our Commander in Chief to stand up and reject this assault upon John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and that of the United States Navy.

As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend. Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service. We Senators and Congressmen who wore the uniform served in different branches of the military and belong to different political parties, but we join together today to defend a fellow veteran from attacks we know to be false, and politically-motivated slander that has no place in our democratic process.

Mr. President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, we believe you owe a special duty to America's combat veterans when they are under false and scurrilous attacks. We hope you will recognize this duty, and speak out against this group and their efforts to smear the reputation of a man who has served this country nobly.

Call on this group to cease and desist. We can return this campaign season to a discussion of the issues on either side, and restore faith in the political system. As Americans, we should expect nothing less.

Sincerely,

[unsigned]

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cleland.letter/index.html

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

"As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend," it said.

"Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service."

Kerry Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation (AGAIN)

Whitewash does not work on this stain...Nor does Schlesinger's cheap perfume...The stench of Abu Ghraib is on the White House, and the stench of the Bush abomination is on Abu Ghraib...It is not finished...Seymour Hersh is not finished...and niether is Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...The honor of the US military will be avenged, and so will the innocent...The unspeakable has yet to be acknowledged by the "US mainstream news media," although you can read it for yourself in the LNS archive's searchable database...There is a Day of political Reckoning coming in November 2004...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/002567.html#more

Kerry Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation
in Abu Ghraib Scandal
Philadelphia, PA – John Kerry issued the following statement today regarding recent reports on Iraqi prisoner abuse:

“Yesterday, the Schlesinger panel released their report which found that much of the responsibility for setting the conditions for the abuse at Abu Ghraib can be attributed to failures at highest levels of our government. Today the Fay report will be released and will recommend punitive action for those in our military who were directly involved.

“But what is missing from all these reports is accountability from the senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon and in the White House. From the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top, there needs to be accountability. The Schlesinger report makes clear that Secretary Rumsfeld was responsible for setting a climate where these types of abuses could occur.

“By failing to plan to win the peace, by failing to make sure our troops received the proper training, equipment, reinforcement and command guidance, and by failing to take corrective actions once all of this became apparent, Secretary Rumsfeld did not demonstrate the leadership required from a Secretary of Defense.

“That is why today I am calling on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign effective immediately. In addition, I call on the President to appoint an independent investigation to review the entire decision making process that led to these abuses and provide a comprehensive set of reforms so that we can ensure that this never happens again.

“As Harry Truman said, 'The buck stops here.' The time has come for our Commander in Chief to take charge.”

Warriors Cleland and Rassman take a message to Waco, meanwhile in a "battleground state," the swift boat ads push GOP veteran into Kerry camp...

In a powerful gesture, richly symbolic and yet poignantly real and direct, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) dispatched Max Cleland (D-GA), who lost three limbs in Vietnam, and former Green Beret Jim Rassman, whose life JFK saved on that fateful day in Vietnam, to Waco (that's the reality of it, the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's "ranch" is in Waco County) to deliver a letter from seven Democrat Senators who served in the US military, demanding that the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident stop playing games and repudiate the false and shameful character assassination squad that was bankrolled by his biggest Texas campaign financier and aided and abetted by his own campaign's lawyer (who forced to resigned quickly yesterday to stem the political hemorrhaging)...Of course, Cleland and Rassman were stopped at a security checkpoint and turned away. The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's press flak called the Cleland-Rassman mission a "stunt." Hmmm...Did you hear the knocking at the door, Mr. _resident? Do you understand what time it is? "Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late." The woods have come to the castle walls. Yes, there is a Day of political Reckoning coming at the ballot box in November 2004..."Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04238/367395.stm

Swift boat ads push GOP veteran into Kerry camp
Wednesday, August 25, 2004

By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Ed Belfoure, who flew helicopters as a Marine in Vietnam, is a registered Republican. But he promises to cross party lines in November to vote for Democrat John Kerry for president.

Belfoure, of Washington, Pa., said yesterday he cannot abide the "despicable television ads" that donors to President Bush's campaign have aimed at Kerry.

A group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has attacked Kerry's service record in Vietnam. Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars and three Purple Hearts in the war -- honors that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say he did not deserve.

Belfoure, appearing yesterday with other veterans at a news conference at Kerry's Downtown Pittsburgh headquarters, called the ads slanderous and untruthful.

"In their perverted attempt to discredit John Kerry, they have done a greater harm to all Vietnam veterans who for years have sought validation for their service to country," he said.

About a dozen other military veterans sounded a similar theme.

Jonathan Soltz, an Army veteran who served in Iraq last year, said the two combat medals Kerry received were awarded only after high-ranking Navy officers evaluated his battle record. To challenge Kerry's medals now, Soltz said, amounts to an attack on the integrity of the military system.

Soltz, who is coordinating Pennsylvania veterans for Kerry, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of ducking military service in Vietnam, then tacitly supporting guttersnipe attacks on Kerry. Soltz said he believes such negative campaigning will backfire on Republicans.

"All they have done is mobilized our base," he said.

In Washington, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign disclosed yesterday that he has been providing legal advice for the Swift Boat group.

Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks the second time in days that an individual associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign has been connected to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The Kerry campaign last week filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of illegally coordinating the group's ads. The Bush campaign and the veterans' group say there is no coordination.

On Saturday, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a member of the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he appeared in the Swift Boat veterans' commercial.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Ginsberg said the group "came to me and said, 'We have a point of view we want to get into the First Amendment debate right now. There's a new law. It's very complicated. We want to comply with the law, will you keep us in the bounds of the law?' I said yes, absolutely, as I would do for anyone."

Ginsberg said he never told the Bush campaign what he discussed with the group, or vice versa, and doesn't advise the group on ad strategies.

Rich Baker, a former Navy lieutenant who served with Kerry on Swift boat missions in Vietnam, agreed with the others at the Pittsburgh appearance.

A Democrat from Scott, Baker voted for Bush in 2000 but said he will back Kerry this year.

Baker called the criticisms of Kerry's wartime service "a smear tactic" that voters should repudiate. "I can vouch for John Kerry's courage and dedication," he said.

Baker estimated that 75 to 100 men who served on Swift boats have direct knowledge of how Kerry conducted himself in battle. He said none of them ever questioned Kerry's courage until he ran for president. Then, Baker said, Republican operatives sprang into action, attacking Kerry despite wartime mission reports that praised his service.

"If I had to go up the river today, I'd want John Kerry on my flank," Baker said. "He knows what it's like to be under fire."

Baker, though, said he was annoyed by the focus on 35-year-old battles in Vietnam. The country and the candidates, he said, should be dealing with more important matters, such as creating jobs and ending warfare in Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Milan Simonich can be reached at msimonich@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1956.)

NOTE to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)

NOTE to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta): Bravo.
Your counter-offensive has been a stunning success.
Ignore the propunditgandist hand-wringing about how
you "waited too long" before responding, they will
second-guess and denigrate everything you do. And they
are wrong. Your timing was impeccable. It will be a week tomorrow since
you took up the counter-offensive in Boston, speaking
to the International Firefighters Association. You
said you were going to turn your boat into the fire,
and you did. And they are on the run. The "SBVT" slime
balls bailed from a scheduled "rally" in Gainesville,
Fraudida (see yesterday's LNS) and, according to the
Dallas Morning News, the Bush cabal financier who
floated the "SBVT" character assasination squad is
bailing from a GOP fund-raiser with DeLay, Rove and
others scheduled for next week in NYC and for which he
was listed as a co-host. Indeed, he is not even going
to attend the Hate and Fear Fest...BUT, John, do not
hold back, do not ease off, PRESS THE ATTACK...FINISH
THEM...It will be a week tomorrow since you said that
if the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident wanted a debate on your Vietnam records,
"bring it on." Well, assume that his answer is yes. He
has not directly and specifically repudiated the
"SBVT" attack ad, as you, and Sen. John Edwards
(D-NC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for him to do, nor has he demanded that it be pulled, as you all called on him to do. Indeed, they have released a follow-up attack ad...OK...Someone has to stand up at a lecturn (or
better yet a pulpit) in a formerly red state with your
military record in one hand and the increasingly
unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's military
record in the other -- maybe your miltary adviser,
Wesley Clark D-NATO) -- and ask the US Electorate
itself to decide who has the CHARACTER to lead this
country and the world. But don't stop there! Someone
else (maybe your tar heel lawyer, John Edwards) should
stand stand up at a lecturn (or better yet a pulpit) in a
formerly red state and hold up the 9/11 Commission
Report and point out how many weeks have gone by since
it was issued, and remind the US Electorate that you
embraced its recommendations fully and called for
immediate action but that the Bush abomination has
hemmed and hawed and stalled and changed the subject
and confused the issues...Well, whoever it is that
stands there with that dog-eared, heavily marked-up
copy of the 9/11 Commission Report (and again, we
suggest Edwards) should open it to some of the many
pages that underscore the INCOMPETENCE of the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's "national security team" and demand
answers and action...But don't stop there! Someone
should stand stand up at a lecturn (or better yet a
pulpit) in a formerly red state, and we suggest that
you should do it yourself, and hold up sample news
paper headlines from the ramp-up to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq in one hand, and sample newspaper
headlines of what has happened since in the other
hand, and DEMAND a Day of political Reckoning for the
Bush abomination's utter loss of CREDIBILITY...950+ US
soldiers have died in this foolish, ill-conceived,
mismananged and unnecessary military
adventure...Plame, Chalabi, Abu Ghraib, David Kay,
Halliburton...Let it rip, John...CREDIBILITY,
CHARACTER, COMPETENCE...Let it rip...Yes, the central
issue in this national referendum is SECURITY:
National Security, Economic Security and Environmental
Security. Are the American people safer today than
they were four years ago? They know the answer is
"No!" But they want to hear it from you, and from your
"national security team." That's what they need, John,
that's what they crave...They will not fail you, they
will fall in behind you...

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm

Questions about Bush's Guard service unanswered
By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At a time when Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry has come under fire from a group
of retired naval officers who say he lied about his
combat record in Vietnam, questions about President
Bush's 1968-73 stint in the Texas Air National Guard
remain unresolved:
Some of the documents about President Bush's
military service documents still have not been made
public.

• Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow
officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop
flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to
take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

• What explains the apparent gap in the president's
Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in
Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for
duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was
supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

• Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting
into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot
despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no
convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and
rowdiness at a football game during his college years?

The White House has released hundreds of pages of
records, but the files released so far haven't
answered those questions. Since the documents were
released in February, at least a half-dozen news
organizations, including USA TODAY, have filed new
requests for Bush's military records under the Freedom
of Information Act.

In an e-mail to USA TODAY last week, presidential
spokesman Dan Bartlett said: "The president has
authorized the release of his records and we are
complying with all requests. Some are taking longer
than others, but all will be addressed."

Past military service and qualifications to be
commander in chief have become a central theme in the
2004 presidential campaign.

Questions about Bush's record predate the current
campaign. The apparent gap in his Guard service first
surfaced before the 2000 election, when The Boston
Globe reported that Texas Guard commanders were unable
to account for Bush's whereabouts from May 1972 to
April 1973.

Bush has not said what he did in the Guard during that
period. Aside from a statement by a former Alabama Air
Guard officer who said he saw Bush report for duty
there in the fall of 1972, the only evidence he was at
Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama was a
record of a dental exam on Jan. 6, 1973, at the base.

Bush said in a TV interview in February that he would
make all his military records available. That month,
the White House released more than 400 pages of Bush
military records, including some duplicates, and said
the documents were a complete catalog of his personnel
files.

But some documents still have not been made public.
The White House did not release Bush's medical records
from his Guard files but allowed a group of reporters
who cover the White House to review them for 20
minutes. They found nothing unusual. Kerry released
some of his military records earlier this year. He has
also declined to release his complete medical records
but showed them to reporters as Bush did.

Since February, the White House has banned all Guard
and military commanders outside the Pentagon from
commenting on Bush's records or service. Requests for
information must go to the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Act office.

The Pentagon last week responded to a 4-month-old
request from USA TODAY for additional records from
Bush's files by sending another copy of documents that
were released by the White House in February. The
documents do not address the unexplained year in
Bush's Guard service or his decision to stop flying.

The Associated Press filed a lawsuit this summer
requesting copies of Bush's military records stored in
a Texas archive on microfilm. It sought information
that might explain why Bush did not take his flight
physical and whether he showed up for duty in Alabama
in the fall of 1972, AP spokesman John Stokes said.

"While much of the media is focused on the pitched battle over the control of the holy shrine in Najaf, a bigger scandal is brewing in Iraq that may well have an equally important effect on the future of the U.S. occupation."

The election in November 2004 is not a national
referendum on Sen. Johh F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)or
the Vietnam war or the Death Penalty or whether a pro-Choice Roman Catholic has the right to receive holy communion or a Constituional Amendment on Gay Marriage, it is a national referendum on the CHARACTER,
CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and CORRUPTION of this
illegitimate regime...and the American people know
it...despite the distractions and distortions
perpetrated by "US mainstream news media" to serve the
special interests of its Corporatist overlords...

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/19620/

The Thief of Baghdad
By Pratap Chatterjee, AlterNet
Posted on August 23, 2004, Printed on August 25, 2004
http://www.alternet.org/story/19620/
Missing: One giant generator owned by the United
States military. Estimated cost: $734,863

Last seen: Somewhere in Iraq.

While much of the media is focused on the pitched battle over the control of the holy shrine in Najaf, a bigger scandal is brewing in Iraq that may well have an equally important effect on the future of the U.S. occupation.

A team of auditors was dispatched to Iraq in late
January this year after a string of internal reports
showed that the military was wasting billions of
dollars of taxpayer money. They have issued eleven
reports since June 25, almost all of which have
pointed to the misuse of the money allocated for
reconstruction, be it Iraqi or Congress-appropriated
funds.

According to two of these reports issued in late July
by Stuart Bowen, the auditor-inspector general of the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), not only have a
full one-third of the items purchased by the Pentagon
gone MIA (including the pricey generator), but a
whopping. $1.9 billion or more of Iraqi oil revenue
has also mysteriously disappeared.

Embarrassed military authorities did eventually track
down the missing generator and much of the money, both
of which seemed to have ended up with none other than
Halliburton. As it turns out they weren't missing
after all; it's just that Dick Cheney's former
employer had misplaced or conveniently forgotten to
turn in the receipts to the correct people.

But the Pentagon was not able to explain just how
Halliburton gained possession of Iraqi funds when
neither the United States Congress nor the Iraqi
government authorized their transfer to Halliburton in
the first place. Worse yet, the man who authorized the
allocation – CPA chief Paul Bremer – had already
quietly left Iraq just as the reports were being
released.

Yet days after the much-touted "transfer of
sovereignty," the White House revealed an even more
startling detail about the reconstruction effort: In
over a year, the CPA had managed to spend just 2
percent of the $18.4 billion earmarked for the
immediate reconstruction of Iraq. And not a penny was
spent on the two areas where the Iraqi people were
suffering the most: healthcare or water and
sanitation.

So what is really going on? Is the United States
spending too much or too little money in Iraq?

To answer that question, we need to separate the
apples from the pears and the oranges.

Other People's Money

There are three treasure chests that the Occupation
authorities are allowed to dip their hands into. The
$87 billion appropriation that Congress granted to the
Bush administration in September 2003 was divided into
two funds: the bigger chunk, some $65 billion, for
military operations and $18.4 billion for
reconstruction. The Development Fund of Iraq (a.k.a.
the revenues accrued from the sale of Iraqi oil) is
the third treasure chest.

Treasure Chest No. 1 was quickly spent after the
invasion on hiring Halliburton to supply the soldiers.
In fact, the Pentagon has reportedly exceeded this
allotment by an estimated $12 billion. This
appropriation has been the source of most of the money
spent in Iraq. It is also the money that has been
subjected to a series of careful audits by the Defense
Contract Audit Agency, the General Accounting Office
(the investigative arm of Congress), and Stuart
Bowen's team of auditors in Baghdad – all of whom have
fiercely criticized Halliburton for its pricing and
spending practices.

The CPA barely touched the $18.4 billion allocated by
Congress for reconstruction (Treasure Chest No.
2)because of stringent bidding and oversight
requirements to prevent fraud or waste. Many of the
reconstruction bills were instead paid for with
revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil (Treasure Chest No.
3). Some of this money was spent on Halliburton for
the repair of the oil infrastructure; some was simply
handed out in cash to local people by soldiers in
return for favors such as rebuilding offices or
building football fields.

A New York Times article in late June 2004, described
the lax oversight of this money thus:

"The teams have become famous in Iraq for the way they
have spread across the country, commissioning repairs
and paying for them from satchels bulging with $100
bills shipped by plane from a Federal Reserve vault in
East Rutherford, New Jersey. At least $1 billion has
been distributed in this fashion – by some estimates
more than $2 billion. 'The military commanders love
that program, because it buys them friends,' said an
administration official, referring to the cash
distribution. 'You want to hire everybody on the
street, put money in their pockets and make them like
you. We have always spent Iraqi money on that.'"

So here is what it all means:

One, the U.S. taxpayers spent a lot of money on the
soldiers, but the Pentagon paid Halliburton to do the
work. The company billed the military top dollar
knowing that the brass would look the other way. The
gravy train finally ground to a halt when two brave
members of Congress inquired about the results of the
internal audit.

Two, almost none of the money that American taxpayers
provided for reconstruction was spent because the
rules were too stringent for the CPA's taste.

And three, we dished out Iraqi money to companies like
Halliburton like it was going out of style because the
United States government knew that neither Congress
nor the United Nations would ask us difficult
questions about what we were doing with other people's
money. Equally importantly, Bush officials were
worried that the new Iraqi government might ask us
difficult questions about their money once they gained
any modicum of power. So they were eager to spend the
money while they could.

In other words, despite access to billions of dollars
for reconstruction, the CPA has done little to serve
the interests of either the American taxpayer or the
Iraqi people. The reconstruction effort has, however,
been a cash bonanza for companies like Halliburton.

The Billion-dollar Corporate Expense Account

Halliburton has been the biggest beneficiary of the
CPA and Pentagon's liberal spending policies – the
company alone got $3.9 billion last year to repair oil
fields and provide food, laundry, sanitation and
transportation services to the military.

Where did the money go? Whistle-blowers from the
company have sent testimony to Congress detailing the
many wasteful practices: paying $100 for a bag of
laundry; abandoning $85,000 trucks for the lack of a
spare tire. Meanwhile, other companies like Science
Applications International Corporation of San Diego
were shipping armored Humvees for company executives
on specially chartered jets and paying themselves $200
an hour to run a U.S. propaganda television station
that no one was watching.

An internal Pentagon audit completed two weeks ago and
reported in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month
found that Halliburton failed to adequately account
for "more than $1.8 billion" it has received so far
for providing logistical support to troops in Iraq and
Kuwait.

When challenged by military auditors to account for
its missing equipment and receipts, the Houston-based
Halliburton told the Pentagon that it did not have
enough staff to keep track of the $400 million it was
spending in Iraq – an explanation that the Defense
Department was surprisingly quick to accept. Linda
Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army Materiel Command,
told reporters, "It was the pace. It was the magnitude
of this contract."

In statements to the press, on the other hand,
Halliburton flatly denies any problems with its
accounting procedures. Randy Harl, president of
Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary
that conducts the work in Iraq, said, "In general, we
have found that the subcontractors are properly
billing on the basis provided in the subcontracts. We
are operating in a remote, hostile and ever-changing
environment in Iraq. In such an environment, there are
bound to be challenges. Any issues related to billings
will not only be resolved quickly and responsibly, but
also resolved in such a way that it will not affect
any services provided to our soldiers."

But in written testimony submitted to Congress,
Halliburton's own auditor, Marie de Young, revealed
that the company's internal auditors (nicknamed the
"Tiger Team") were not doing their job properly. De
Young, who was hired in December 2003 to help oversee
Operation Iraqi Freedom contracts, told Congress:

When the Tiger Team examined a subcontract, they just
checked to make sure that all the forms were in the
file. ... They didn't assess the reasonableness of the
price or consult with site managers. The team's sole
purpose was to close as many subcontracts as possible,
under the mistaken assumption that everything that was
closed prior to the arrival of the government audit
team would be exempt from further scrutiny.

De Young also made clear the company's intentions: "I
had been advised by subcontract administrators who
quit the company that employees get moved around when
they get too close to the truth. ... Ironically, other
previous managers who tolerated bad practices were
promoted to better paying jobs in Iraq or Houston or
Jordan."

The final touch of irony: Halliburton housed the Tiger
Team at the five-star Kempinski Hotel in Kuwait,
paying each of them a whopping $10,000 per month for
their troubles. At the time, U.S. soldiers were
required to live in tents at a cost of $1.39 a day.
When the military asked Halliburton employees to move
into the tents, they refused.

Crimes and Consequences

The audit reports have produced little real action on
the part of the Pentagon thus far. Last Monday,
Halliburton announced that the Pentagon had told the
company that it plans to withhold 15 percent ($60
million) of its monthly payment until they find all
the missing receipts. But the Pentagon reversed its
decision the very next day, announcing that it will
give the company more time to find the missing paper
work and prove their costs before imposing the
penalty. Halliburton has already been granted extra
time twice.

The audits may also not have much effect on the future
of the reconstruction effort, which remains grim.
Bremer's departure in June was only one in an exodus
of occupation officials and contractors, derisively
labeled by a U.S. soldier as "The League of Frightened
Gentleman," fleeing the dangerous situation in Iraq.
The German engineers hired to repair the Daura power
plant in Baghdad left behind enormous disassembled
machines strewn across the plant floor. "They didn't
contact me," said Bashir Khalif Omir, the plant
director at the time. "They took their luggage at
midnight and they left."

When Bremer caught his jet plane out of Iraq, two
heavily armed Blackwater private military watched his
back, rifles pointed menacingly at camera crews. There
were no flowers from an adoring Iraqi public, not even
anything similar to the dramatic lift-off from the
roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon marked the occasion
– just a quiet, top-secret escape to freedom (and a
lucrative book contract). But Bremer left behind a
nation that was not just more dangerous but also
poorer for his efforts.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights
reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/19620/

E.J. Dionne: Just politics? Nation, media, and Bush should stand up to Swift Boat smear campaign

950+ US soldiers killed in a foolish military
adventure, Abu Ghraib, Chalabi, Plame, WMD lies,
pre-9/11 incompetence (at best), post-9/11
incompetence (at best), hundreds of billions of
dollars in Federal budget deficit, seven trillion
dollars in national debt, dismal economic news,
soaring oil prices, Medifraud, Enron and the phoney
"California energy crisis," Halliburton (both under
Cheney and in Iraq), the prostitution of the EPA and
other government agencies...Yes, let's spend another
news cycle debating the Vietnam war record of Sen.
John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17523
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Washington Post Writers Group
08.24.04

Just politics? Nation, media, and Bush should stand up to Swift Boat smear campaign

WASHINGTON -- You would have thought that if the issue
of who served under fire during the Vietnam War became
a big deal at this point in the presidential campaign,
it would be a major advantage to John Kerry.
After all, there is no dispute that Kerry served in
Vietnam's combat zones while both President Bush and
Vice President Cheney avoided the war. Bush served
stateside in the National Guard (it's still not clear
exactly how much of his duty time he missed) and
Cheney avoided the military altogether. The hawkish
veep has explained blithely, "I had other priorities
in the '60s than military service."

Republicans insisted that military service was an
important criterion for leadership when Bill Clinton
ran against the elder George Bush and former Sen. Bob
Dole, war veterans both. But the Republican attack
maestros were never as interested in service as they
were in taking and holding power. So now it's Bush
supporters, through a front group, attacking the war
veteran -- much as they attacked Vietnam hero John
McCain during the Republican primaries four years ago
when McCain dared to challenge Bush.

This episode is a great test of how politics work in
our country. It is, first, a test of George W. Bush.

Bush claims that his highest priority is uniting the
country in the war against terrorism. A president who
would be a uniter and not a divider knows that
cheap-shot politics can only further rend our nation
and weaken his own ability to lead.

On Monday, Bush offered what you might call a nuanced
response to the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads.
While praising Kerry's service, Bush issued only a
blanket condemnation of all ads by outside groups.
What Bush really needs to do is tell the
inappropriately named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to
stop smearing Kerry's service record and urge his big
money contributors to stop bankrolling the
distortions.

This is also a test for the media. We see here a
fascinating and ugly development in the politics of
annihilation. A supposedly outside group raises money
from close Bush supporters, staffs itself with
political operatives close to Bush and the
Republicans, and then puts up several hundred thousand
dollars worth of television ads. This is, as one
operative with years of experience in Republican
campaigns, put it, "a professional hit." Suddenly,
questions about Kerry's service that were asked and
answered months ago become big news again.

To their credit, several news organizations -- The New
York Times, Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post
among them -- have run reports exposing the
distortions, inconsistencies and fabrications of the
anti-Kerry crowd, and the links between this operation
and the Bush machine.

But this hasn't stopped the run of unproven innuendo.
Even highly respected Republicans have jumped in.
"There's got to be some truth to these charges," Dole,
a true war hero, said on CNN.

Alas, this is the classic course a smear campaign
takes. A group throws up accusations that, when
subjected to scrutiny, prove to be full of holes.
Supporters of the attack campaign say that, well,
those charges may not pan out, but there must be
something here. Let's just keep attacking.

The media have to do more than "he said/he said"
reporting. If the charges don't hold up, they don't
hold up. And, yes, now that John Kerry's life during
his 20s has been put at the heart of this campaign
just over two months from Election Day, the media owe
the country a comparable review of what Bush was doing
at the same time and the same age.

If all the stories are about what Kerry did in Vietnam
and not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the
Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a
right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation's editors
and producers don't want to send a signal that all you
have to do to set the media's agenda is to spend a
half a million bucks on television ads.

This is also a test of John McCain. When he ran
against Bush four years ago, McCain was smeared
mercilessly. When McCain protested to Bush about the
attacks at one of their debates during the 2000
primaries, Bush brushed him off. "John," Bush said,
"it's politics."

McCain snapped back, "George, everything isn't
politics."

McCain was right, and when he returns to the United
States from a trip to Europe this week, he should
stand up for that principle by suspending his
campaigning for Bush's re-election until the smears
against Kerry's Vietnam record stop. More than anyone,
McCain is the person to make the case that
slaughterhouse politics is particularly ill-suited at
this moment in our history.

Now that John Kerry's life during his 20s has been put
at the heart of this campaign, the media owe the
country a comparable review of what Bush was doing at
the same time and the same age.

For more, please visit the E.J. Dionne, Jr. archives.

(c) 2004, Washington Post Writers Group
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily
those of Working Assets, nor is Working Assets
responsible for objectionable material accessed via
links from this site.

LA Times Editorial: These Charges are False...

Although this LAT editorial is rather self-serving and
disingenuous about what is going on in newsrooms these
days, it is nevertheless significant in its moral force and refreshing in its lack of ambiguity. It both reveals human decency and clarity of mind.
Unfortunately, both qualties are rare in the "US
mainstream news media."

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Z.shtml

These Charges are False...
Los Angeles Times | Editorial

Tuesday 25 August 2004

It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get
nasty but quite another for it to engage in
fabrication.
The technique President Bush is using against John
F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael
Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to
Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however
bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the
Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128
times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the
State Department." But make sure the supporting
details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent
easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for
you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually
feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even
attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of
the profession prevent most journalists from saying
outright: These charges are false. As a result, the
voters are left with a general sense that there is
some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's
service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from
thinking about real issues (like the war going on now)
by these laboratory concoctions.

It must be infuriating to the victims of this
process to be given conflicting advice about how to
deal with it from the same campaign press corps that
keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a)
Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick
to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the
turf.

At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the
media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice
(a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's
failure to strike back said about whether he had the
backbone for the job of president — and even when he
did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon
enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use
of this issue say about whether he has the simple
decency for the job of president?

Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift
boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that
triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law
is not a very interesting question. The ridiculously
named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded by
conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world
in various ways, just as MoveOn.org, which is running
nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of service in
Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.

More important, either man could shut down the
groups working on his behalf if he wanted to. Kerry
has denounced the MoveOn ads, with what degree of
sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday — finally —
called for all ads by independent groups on both sides
to be halted. He also said Kerry had "served
admirably" in Vietnam. But he declined an invitation
to condemn the Swift boat effort.

In both cases, the candidates are the reason the
groups are in business. There is an important
difference, though, between the side campaign being
run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry
campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign
is nasty, personal and false.

No informed person can seriously believe that
Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals
in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as
having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago.
Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the
events in question, as well as by documentation. His
accusers have no evidence except their own dubious
word.

Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues
in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges
against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no
good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he
were a man of principle, would say the same thing.

Gainesville Sun: Swift boat vets back out of speech at local rally

Rove's character assasination squad is deserting...and
Fraudida is slipping from the Bush cabal's clutches...

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040822/LOCAL/40821054/1078

Swift boat vets back out of speech at local rally

By GREG C. BRUNO, JEFF ADELSON and DEBORAH BALL

Sun Staff Writers
August 22. 2004 6:01AM

ZOOM DAVID MASSEY/The Gainesville Sun
Vietnam veteran Tommy Wheeler looks onto the downtown
community plaza during a rally originally organized to
showcase The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Vietnam
Veterans against Kerry and Veterans for Bush on
Saturday. No swift boat veterans showed.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member featured
prominently in ads attacking Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam
service said he was misled by Republicans when asked
to speak at an anti-Kerry rally in Gainesville on
Saturday.

Joe Ponder, wounded during the war in 1968, said he
turned down the speaking engagement after learning
that fliers promoting the event had been distributed
at a local Bush-Cheney campaign office Friday.

Pete Webster, another member of the organization
scheduled to speak, did not attend Saturday's rally.

When the speakers failed to materialize, scores of
Bush and Kerry supporters who had gathered for the
event sparred verbally for more than three hours.

The Bush campaign has insisted for weeks that it has
no connection to the swift boat veteran's group. Known
as a 527 for its tax-exempt status, the organization
has sponsored television ads featuring several Vietnam
veterans who accuse Kerry f lying about events for
which he won medals.

Kerry supporters have countered that members of the
organization did not serve in the same boat as the
Massachusetts senator, and accused the veterans' group
of using negative campaign tactics. Kerry has said he
stands behind his record.

The group is financed by a Texas businessman with
longtime ties to prominent Republicans in the state,
including President Bush.

By law, such groups can not coordinate with campaigns.

During an interview Saturday from his Keystone Heights
home, Ponder said he did not know how the fliers wound
up at the Alachua County Republican Party headquarters
in Gainesville, and offered few details of the event
itself. In addition to the swift boat group, the
program noted that "Alachua County Republicans,"
"Veterans for Bush," and the "Alachua Bush-Cheney
Committee" were scheduled to attend.

"I had the assurance that the party and the
Bush-Cheney campaign had nothing to do with this,"
Ponder said.

But after learning about the flyer, "I contacted those
folks and told them that as much as I was looking
forward to addressing the vets, I decided it was in
the best interest of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
that I not participate in this event."

There was question as to whether the swift boat group
had ever officially agreed to attend the eight-hour
rally. An e-mailed statement from another swift boat
member, John O?Neill, claimed that the engagement was
never cleared by the group's executives.

Regardless, Kerry officials have seized on reports of
the rally's alleged promotion, declaring Friday that
Bush had been "busted" for coordinating with the group
"in their smear campaign" against the Democratic
presidential nominee.

They went one step further on Saturday, saying that
Ponder's decision not to speak was proof of
cooperation between the groups.

"The fact that they canceled once the evidence came
out is a pretty clear sign they knew they were
breaking the law," said Matt Miller, Kerry's Florida
spokesman.

"And by they, I mean the Bush campaign and the Swift
Boat people."

In Washington, Bush-Cheney officials dismissed the
claims as ridiculous.

"This campaign would object to any sort of literature
or promotion (from an outside group) placed within any
Republican office," said Taylor Griffin, a spokesman
for the Republican campaign.

"The bottom line is, this campaign has no relationship
with this group."

Despite the high-level partisan bickering, details of
the event and its promotion in Gainesville remained
unclear Saturday.

Dineen Wolfersheim, secretary of the Alachua County
Republican Executive Committee, said she helped
organized the event as a private citizen and blamed an
unidentified "overzealous Republican" for placing the
flier in the party's headquarters. She said once local
Republican party officials learned of the promotion's
placement, they removed it.

In addition, Wolfersheim said she pulled the permit
needed for the event and helped others organize and
raise money.

REC Chairman Travis Horn said he was aware Wolfersheim
was participating in the event, but said she was not
doing so as a representative of the party.

"We don't control what people do with their First
Amendment rights," he said.

Horn said he had seen the fliers in the office, but
only noticed that they advertised a "pro-USA veteran's
rally." The committee never authorized the use of the
name of their committee or party on the fliers and did
not contribute funds or resources to the event, the
chairman said.

The REC and other organizations affiliated with the
party were also mentioned in an e-mail announcement
sent by Wolfersheim promoting the event.

"The Swift Boat Vets for Truth, Vietnam Veterans
against Kerry, Veterans for Bush have asked us to
participate and join them in a political rally at the
downtown plaza," according to the e-mail, which is
signed Dineen Wolfersheim, Events Coordinator, ACREC
Secretary.

ACREC is the Alachua County Republican Executive
Committee.

Wolfersheim said she wrote the e-mail but did not
intend for it to be put into general distribution.
Republican groups did not sponsor the event, she said,
though they were invited to participate.

"In no way is this (event) sanctioned by my party or
my president," she said.

Though the event lacked speakers, it was not at a loss
for political organizations. Members of other veterans
groups supporting Bush attended, but did not speak.

Denny Baum, with Vietnam Veterans for Truth, was
initially slated to speak along with the swift boat
veterans, but said "legal issues" prevented him from
speaking at the event.

In the muggy, wet afternoon, activists from both
campaigns struggled for control of the plaza's stage,
with more than 70 Kerry supporters nearly crowding out
a smaller, pro-Bush contingent.

Between them, a third group tried to remain neutral on
the sharply divided political battleground.

Kerry supporters sang "America the Beautiful" and "God
Bless America" while Bush supporters recited the
Pledge of Allegiance. Heated debates over which man
was "fit for command" had supporters on both sides
engaged in a face-to-face war of words. A sea of red,
white and blue signs were held high, but the
atmosphere was anything but peaceful.

When Kerry supporters refused to leave the stage,
Wolfersheim called the Gainesville Police Department
to have them removed. After being asked to leave by
the police, the Kerry supporters moved onto the lawn
of the plaza, where they continued to argue with Bush
supporters on the stage before dispersing by 5:30 p.m.

Bob Herbert: A Chill in Florida

No number of op-ed pieces written by an African American
columnist, however compelling, absolves the NYTwits of
their journalistic responsibility of ACCURATELY
reporting what is happening in Fraudida -- on their
FRONT PAGE...The NYTwits failed the US Electorate in
2000, and there is little evidence that it will be any
different in 2004...

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082404J.shtml

A Chill in Florida
By Bob Herbert
New York Times

Monday 23 August 2004

The state police investigation into get-out-the-vote
activities by blacks in Orlando, Fla., fits perfectly
with the political aims of Gov. Jeb Bush and the
Republican Party.

The Republicans were stung in the 2000 presidential
election when Al Gore became the first Democrat since
1948 to carry Orange County, of which Orlando is the
hub. He could not have carried the county without the
strong support of black voters, many of whom cast
absentee ballots.

The G.O.P. was stung again in 2003 when Buddy Dyer,
a Democrat, was elected mayor of Orlando. He won a
special election to succeed Glenda Hood, a three-term
Republican who was appointed Florida secretary of
state by Governor Bush. Mr. Dyer was re-elected last
March. As with Mr. Gore, the black vote was an
important factor.

These two election reverses have upset Republicans
in Orange County and statewide. Moreover, the anxiety
over Democratic gains in Orange County is entwined
with the very real fear among party stalwarts that
Florida might go for John Kerry in this year's
presidential election.

It is in this context that two of the ugliest
developments of the current campaign season should be
viewed.

"A Democrat can't win a statewide election in
Florida without a high voter turnout - both at the
polls and with absentee ballots - of
African-Americans," said a man who is close to the
Republican establishment in Florida but asked not to
be identified. "It's no secret that the name of the
game for Republicans is to restrain that turnout as
much as possible. Black votes are Democratic votes,
and there are a lot of them in Florida."

The two ugly developments - both focused on race -
were the heavy-handed investigation by Florida state
troopers of black get-out-the-vote efforts in Orlando,
and the state's blatant attempt to purge blacks from
voter rolls through the use of a flawed list of
supposed felons that contained the names of thousands
of African-Americans and, conveniently, very few
Hispanics.

Florida is one of only a handful of states that bar
convicted felons from voting, unless they successfully
petition to have their voting rights restored. The
state's "felon purge" list had to be abandoned by
Glenda Hood, the secretary of state (and, yes, former
mayor of Orlando), after it became known that the
flawed list would target blacks but not Hispanics, who
are more likely in Florida to vote Republican. The
list also contained the names of thousands of people,
most of them black, who should not have been on the
list at all.

Ms. Hood, handpicked by Governor Bush to succeed the
notorious Katherine Harris as secretary of state, was
forced to admit that the felons list was a mess. She
said the problems were unintentional. What clearly was
intentional was the desire of Ms. Hood and Governor
Bush to keep the list secret. It was disclosed only as
a result of lawsuits filed under Florida's admirable
sunshine law.

Meanwhile, the sending of state troopers into the
homes of elderly black voters in Orlando was said by
officials to be a response to allegations of voter
fraud in last March's mayoral election. But the
investigation went forward despite findings in the
spring that appeared to show that the allegations were
unfounded.

Why go forward anyway? Well, consider that the
prolonged investigation dovetails exquisitely with
that crucial but unspoken mission of the G.O.P. in
Florida: to keep black voter turnout as low as
possible. The interrogation of elderly black men and
women in their homes has already frightened many
voters and intimidated elderly get-out-the-vote
volunteers.

The use of state troopers to zero in on voter
turnout efforts is highly unusual, if not
unprecedented, in Florida. But the head of the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, Guy Tunnell, who was
also handpicked by Governor Bush, has been unfazed by
the mounting criticism of this use of the state
police. His spokesmen have said a "person of interest"
in the investigation is Ezzie Thomas, a 73-year-old
black man who just happens to have done very well in
turning out the African-American vote.

From the G.O.P. perspective, it doesn't really
matter whether anyone is arrested in the Orlando
investigation, or even if a crime was committed. The
idea, in Orange County and elsewhere, is to send a
chill through the democratic process, suppressing
opposing votes by whatever means are available.

-------

Business Week: John Kerry returned a hero. The smears his political enemies are now flinging mark them -- not him -- as beneath contempt

Four more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what? The
neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. Meanwhile,
the "US mainstream news media," which no longers gives
these tragic and *unnecessary* deaths prominent
coverage, has flooded the air waves for days and
nights with the Bush cabal's despicable and deceitful
attacks on the heroic military record of Sen. John F.
Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...JFK is ahead in Missouri,
Ohio and Fraudida. West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas are in play. New
Hampshire is already lost to the Bush cabal...Arizona
and Nevada too are in play...There is an Electoral
Uprising coming in November...The Bush cabal will get even more desperate and even more viscious the closer we get to the day of political reckoning...

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040823_6115_db045.htm

AUGUST 23, 2004

COMMENTARY
By Thane Peterson

Flinging the Foul Mud of Vietnam: John Kerry returned a hero. The smears his political enemies are now flinging mark them -- not him -- as beneath contempt

The next time the nation gets into a war, why would
any American with an interest in national service show
up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept
the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged
combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the
attacks on John Kerry by a bunch of angry,
Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic
candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which
include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple
Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam.

But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican
Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a
genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his
South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush
for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the
relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max
Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated
Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If
you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need
to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam.

It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in
general -- to get on the right side of this issue once
and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry
and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry
served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you
don't think it's important for a President to have
served in combat, fine, make your choice on other
grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on
this one issue (see BW Online, 8/23/04, "Why Kerry's
War Record Matters").

REPUBLICAN RECOMMENDATION. Nine of the ten Swift-boat
comrades who served on Kerry's boat have showed up at
his side to campaign for him and defend him. They're
the ones with the most direct knowledge of what
happened and they confirm that Kerry deserved the
Bronze Star for his leadership during a skirmish on
March 13, 1969.

So does Jim Rassmann, the retired Los Angeles County
cop who introduced Kerry at the Democratic Convention.
Rassmann is a Republican, for gosh sakes. He came
forward on his own and offered to campaign for Kerry,
whom he credits with saving his life that day. Rassman
also recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, one of the
nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the
highest medal Kerry won.

Crewmen on the three Swift boats involved in an attack
Kerry led on Feb. 28, 1969, also support Kerry's
version of events. That's the day Kerry won the Silver
Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery
under fire and the highest medal Kerry was awarded.

The latest to come forward is Willam R. Rood, a
Chicago Tribune editor who commanded one of the other
boats, broke a 35-year silence when he published a
first-person account on Aug. 22 supporting Kerry's
version. "What matters most to me," Rood wrote, "is
that this is hurting crewmen who are not public
figures and who deserved to be honored for what they
did."

"FOG OF WAR"? Contrast that with George Bush, who few
witnesses can recall having seen during a long stretch
of his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War.
News organizations have done plenty of digging into
the past to determine whether Bush used personal
influence to get himself into that National Guard
assignment. It's hard to say for certain. But no poor
people were in that unit. The only ones in it were
people with pull.

Why the so-called called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
-- only one of whom served on the same vessel with
Kerry -- have decided to attack their fellow vet is a
bit hard to decipher, too. I suppose it could partly
be an honest difference of opinion. Maybe the "fog of
war" led vets to have different memories of the same
events.

But the critics' main motivation is clear from
statements they themselves have repeatedly made: They
remain angry that Kerry protested the war when he
returned the U.S. and, specifically, that he accused
his fellow soldiers of having committed atrocities in
Vietnam.

MUDDYING THE WATER. Unfortunately, soldiers --
including American soldiers -- commit atrocities in
all wars. That was true even of the so-called Greatest
Generation in World War II, it was true in Korea and
Vietnam, and it's undoubtedly true in the current
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denying that is to
deny the reality of war. And failing to face the harsh
realities of war is what makes it so easy for the U.S.
to slide into nasty, unnecessary conflicts -- like
Vietnam and the Iraq War now.

Americans should never go to war except in the full
knowledge that it's going to wreak terrible pain on
the enemy, the civilian populations involved, and our
own troops. That doesn't make the service of those who
served honorably any less honorable. But anyone who
denies that some American soldiers committed
atrocities in Vietnam is kidding themselves. You can
quibble over the exact words Kerry used and whether he
should have said them when he did, but in broad terms
he spoke the truth.

The purpose of the attacks against Kerry, however,
isn't to get at the truth. It's a media campaign, with
TV ads intended to create a vague, negative impression
where none existed. The people behind the ads know
that by any realistic assessment of the facts, Kerry
has a major advantage over Bush when it comes to their
respective military records. They want to muddy the
waters to reduce Kerry's advantage. It's amazing that
such bald-faced tactics can gain any traction with
voters.

NO EQUIVALENCY. The critics know that if they can
just manufacture the appearance of controversy, most
reporters -- in the name of "balancing" their stories
-- will play along. Attacks on Bush, such as an ad
funded by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that
questioned Bush's military record, have been given
equal weight with the vets' attack ads in some
stories.

The Bush campaign and editorial writers are calling on
Kerry to distance himself from the MoveOn ads in the
same breath that the Kerry campaign and editorialists
are asking Bush to renounce the Swift-boat vets' ads.
Kerry has repudiated the MoveOn ad (after some
prodding from McCain).

But sorry, my fellow journalists, there's no
equivalency here. MoveOn is an avowedly partisan group
that openly opposes Bush. The Swift-boat vets tried to
cover their political tracks while claiming inside
knowledge about Kerry most of them clearly don't have.
And several of them have flip-flopped from publicly
praising Kerry to attacking him.

A nation has to honor its war veterans whatever their
political party, while remaining realistic about the
horrors of war. If some Americans do otherwise, all
Americans are shamed. McCain has also called on Bush
to denounce the attacks on Kerry and condemn that kind
of low-life negative campaigning. It's time the
President complied in no uncertain terms, and it's
time he meant it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson is a contributing editor at BusinessWeek
Online. Follow his State of the Arts column, only on
BusinessWeek Online
Edited by Douglas Harbrecht

Copyright 2000-2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Notice

Iraqi Soccer Coach: "Freedom is just a word for the media. We are living in hard times, under occupation."

First, the 9/11 Families demanded that the Bush-Cheney campaign not exploit the slaughter of their loved ones in its political advertisements, then the
International Association of Firefighters demanded
that the 9/11-related deaths of NYC firefighters not
be exploited in political advertisements for Bush-Cheney, then the family
of slain WSJ journalist Danny Pearl demanded that VICE
_resident Cheney not exploit Danny's sacrifice for
political gain after a tasteless remark in one of his speeches, and now, the Iraqi soccer team coach has joined the team's already outspoken players in
denouncing the Bush-Cheney campaign's exploitation of their success
for his political gain...What is happening in this
country? This activity is not 527-related. It is official Bush-Cheney campaign activity. Why isn't this extraordinary pattern of
exploitation and rebuke a major story for the "US
mainstream news media"? Well, of course, they are not
interested in providing CONTEXT and CONTINUITY for the
real news...their not so hidden agenda is to save the
Corporatist lock on the White House and the US Senate,
and the media monopoly it enables, at almost any
cost...

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy on 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082404X.shtml

Soccer: We're No Symbol of Freedom, Iraq Coach Says
By Ellie Tzortzi
Reuters

Monday 23 August 2004

THESSALONIKI, Greece (Reuters) - Iraq's Olympic
soccer coach said Monday his side should not be seen
as a symbol of freedom, taking issue with a campaign
commercial for President Bush.

The flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear in a
commercial as part of Bush's drive for re-election in
November. A narrator says: "At this Olympics there
will be two more free nations -- and two fewer
terrorist regimes."

But coach Adnan Hamad said Iraq, still plagued by
violence daily, remained a country under occupation.

"You cannot speak about a team that represents
freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an
occupying force. This is one of our most miserable
times," he said.

"Freedom is just a word for the media. We are
living in hard times, under occupation."

The Iraqi men's soccer side has been one of the
surprises of the Olympics, reaching the semifinals of
the competition. They play Paraguay Tuesday for a
place in the final.

But their success has been overshadowed in the
past few days by rows over the commercial for Bush,
who went to war and ousted Iraq's Saddam Hussein last
year.

Although Washington has officially handed power to
an Iraqi interim government, more than 130,000
American soldiers remain in the country, battling with
insurgents from various factions. Western officials
also hold key positions behind the scenes.

"We want to give our people a cause to celebrate,
to forget their problems," Hamad told reporters in the
northern Greek city of Thessaloniki, the venue for
Tuesday's match.

After Sports Illustrated magazine quoted Iraqi
team members expressing outrage at the Bush ad, a
British adviser to the Iraqi Olympic committee accused
journalists of taking advantage of players' naivete
and said sport should not be politicized.

But Hamad said: "One cannot separate politics and
sport because of the situation in the country right
now."

He said the violence which continues to afflict
Iraq, more than a year after Bush declared major
combat there was over, meant the team could not fully
enjoy its success.

"To be honest with you, even our happiness at
winning is not happiness because we are worried about
the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our
people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we
are not really happy," he said.

The International Olympic Committee said it had
not been in touch with the Bush campaign about its use
of the Games in the commercial. National Olympic
committees own the rights to the Olympic name and
symbols in their countries, a spokeswoman said.

-------

Boykin said, "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Either the Bush cabal is turned out of power in the national referendum in November 2004 or we will lose this Republic and be caught up in an unspeakable nightmare...Yes, it can get much worse...fast...Ask those you know who might be considering throwing their vote away on the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader if they really think that Boykin would still be in uniform in a Kerry-Edwards administration?

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6871&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=6s2t4yh5l1.app13a&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

Americans United Urges Defense Dept. To Fire Controversial General
Thursday August 19, 2004

Army Official Who Claimed U.S. Is Waging Christian Holy War Against Satan Should Be Removed from Office, Says AU's Lynn

The Defense Department would be wrong to exonerate an Army general who sparked international ire for describing the U.S. war on terrorism as a Christian battle against Satan, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"We are concerned that the Defense Department is not taking this case seriously," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "General Boykin's conduct was utterly outrageous and should not be treated lightly."

According to today's Washington Post, a Defense Department report recommends that the Acting Secretary of the Army find Boykin, who is now a high-ranking military intelligence official, guilty of minor internal regulations, such as failing to get clearance for his frequent comments before churches and making sure his audiences understood that he was speaking in a personal capacity. The report has not been made public, but was obtained by the newspaper.

The Post's article quotes a "senior Defense official" as calling the report a "complete exoneration" of Boykin and that it is likely the general will only be held responsible for "relatively minor offenses."

In October 2003, Americans United urged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fire Boykin. Only months earlier in April, AU had sent a letter to the Secretary of the Army protesting Boykin's endorsement of a Southern Baptist evangelism program and his use of an army base and its personnel to host and promote the ministry.

Boykin's frequent speeches before churches and prayer breakfasts nationwide drew worldwide attention when they were brought to light in fall 2003. Boykin spoke about his involvement in the war on terrorism at 23 religious events since early 2002. According to the Post, he wore his uniform at all but two.

In a speech in Daytona, Fla., Boykin recalled his efforts to capture an Islamic militant in Somalia who boasted that Allah would protect him from Americans. Boykin said, "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

During a speech before a congregation in Oregon, he declared that he was leading a "spiritual battle" against Satan. He told the congregation that Islamic extremists hate the U.S. "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian."

Boykin was roundly criticized by political leaders worldwide and his comments only added to perceptions held by many in the Middle East of an American-led war against Islam. A gaggle of Religious Right groups and their congressional allies has come out in support of Boykin. And although President George W. Bush sought to distance his administration from Boykin's remarks, Rumsfeld praised the general's "outstanding record" and refused to suspend him from office during the defense department's investigation.

Lynn said that the administration should remove Boykin from office.

"The general should not be in a top policy-making position," said Lynn. "This initial report from the Defense Department is troubling because it suggests Boykin will not be held fully accountable for his inflammatory actions."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir told Sports Illustrated in a story posted yesterday online. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

The major network news organizations have been running *feel good* stories of the Iraqi soccer on the air waves this weekend. Not once mentioning this compelling aspect of their story, i.e. no CONTEXT, no CONTINUITY. "Long Live Big Brother! Long Live Big Brother!" (Luckily, the best newspaper in New York is keeping its "eye on the prize," i.e. journalistic truth.) Add the Iraqi soccer team to the list that includes the International Firefighters Association, the 9/11 Families and slain WSJ journalist Danny Pearl's family, i.e the list of those who have demanded that they not be exploited in Bush cabal political advertisements...Oh, but that too would be providing CONTEXT and CONTINUITY...

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224061p-192375c.html

Team Iraq aims
kick at Bush

BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Iraqi soccer team featured in a Bush
campaign ad says it considers the President a killer
who should remove U.S. forces from their country
immediately.
Midfielder Ahmed Manajid even said if he wasn't
playing soccer at the Olympics, he would be home in
Fallujuah trying to kill American soldiers.

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for
the presidential campaign," Iraqi midfielder Salih
Sadir told Sports Illustrated in a story posted
yesterday online. "He can find another way to
advertise himself."

A week ago, the Bush camp began airing the
touchy-feely TV ad that paints Iraq's and
Afghanistan's participation in the Olympics as an
example of democracy growing worldwide. And, on the
campaign trail, President Bush has cited Team Iraq's
impressive start in Athens.

The Iraqis say enough already.

"How will [Bush] meet his God, having slaughtered so
many men and women?" Manajid told the magazine. "He
has committed so many crimes."

Iraqi coach Adnan Hamad says his problems "are not
with the American people" but rather "with what
America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The
American Army has killed so many people in Iraq. What
is freedom when I go to the stadium and there are
shootings on the road?"

Still, the 2-1 Iraqi soccer team, which is headed
toward the medal round, is happy about one thing: It
does not have to fear torture if it loses, as was the
policy of ex-Iraq Olympic Committee Chairman Uday
Hussein, son of jailed former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Uday was killed by U.S. forces along with brother
Qusay about four months into the war.

"Freedom and democracy are spreading across the globe
because of America and her allies - and there are two
more, Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bush campaign
spokesman Kevin Madden.

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush...We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is...We want to hear from the president of the United States. We don't want to hear rhetoric. We want to hear th

The increasingly shrinking _resident was a coward
during the Vietnam war, who let others fight a war he
supported while he hide here, and he is a coward now,
letting others do his political wet work for him while
he runs the other way, only addressing those who have
signed a loyalty oath (literally) and only answering
scripted questions (literally). But no context or
continuity is coming from the "US mainstream news
media." The "US mainstream news media" did not provide
the proper context for the viscious and deceitful
"Swift Boat Veterans" ruse, they did not compare it to
what the Bush cabaal's character assassination squad
did to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in South Carolina in
2000. The Kerry-Edwards campaign had to provide that
context. Nor have they made the fairly simple, direct
and irrefutable observation that there is no lack of
documentation on the battle for which JFK was
decorated or indeed for his whole tour of service
while there is a disturbing lack of documentation and
a disturbing gap in the record of the increasingly
unhinged and incredible shrinking _resident's
*service* in the Alabama National Guard. Indeed, we
hardly know anything except that he got some dental
work done on the taxpayer's dime. Numerous and serious
unresolved allegations concerning whether or not he
went AWOL or was deemed unfit continue to swirl around
in the vortex created by that lack of documentation
and the disturbing gap. The White House has claimed
that Bush's entire record was released, but it was
not...Lo and behold, there was no paper trail for the
months that are of the greatest concern...Documents
have been announced as "destroyed" have later surfaced
to provide...grist for more questions...And yet the
"US mainstream news media" does not think it strange
or disproportionate in its coverage of the sliming of
JFK..."Long Live Big Brother! Long Live Big Brother!"
Yes, it's the Media, Stupid.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22430-2004Aug21?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Edwards Assails Veterans Group Ad as Lies

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A15

ROANOKE, Aug. 21 -- John Edwards demanded Saturday
that President Bush call for television ads attacking
John F. Kerry's military service in Vietnam to be
pulled because they are lies funded by Bush allies.

"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," the
North Carolina senator told a cheering crowd at a
magnet school here, where his campaign stopped for a
morning town hall meeting. "We're going to see what
kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. . . .
We want to hear from the president of the United
States. We don't want to hear rhetoric. We want to
hear three words: 'Stop these ads!' "

Saturday night at a fundraiser in the Hamptons, Kerry
repeated those sentiments, saying that "they are
personally going after me." He declared that "the
president needs to stand up and stop that."

The Democrats' comments represented what the campaign
called a systematic effort to aggressively respond to
charges by a Republican-backed group of veterans
accusing the Massachusetts senator of inflating his
military record. The campaign also posted an online ad
comparing the attacks to ones leveled against Sen.
John McCain (Ariz.) in his bid for the 2000 GOP
nomination.

The video, "Old Tricks," will be e-mailed to 200,000
veterans activists and posted on veterans Web sites.
"George Bush is up to his old tricks," the video says,
showing Bush and McCain at a debate in February 2000.

McCain, sitting next to Bush, says that when "fringe
veterans groups" attacked him at a Bush campaign
function, Bush stood by and did not say a word. "I
don't know how you can understand this, George, but
that really hurts," McCain says in the video.

Kerry's critics are being challenged by a Chicago
Tribune editor who was on the Feb. 28, 1969, mission
for which Kerry received the Silver Star.

"There were three swift boats on the river that day in
Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and
15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to
talk about what happened on February 28, 1969,"
William B. Rood wrote in a 1,700-word story that
appeared on the newspaper's Web site Saturday. "One is
John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who
won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am
the other."

Rood refused requests for interviews, including from
his own newspaper. "But Kerry's critics, armed with
stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the
accounts of what happened were overblown." he wrote.
"The critics have taken pains to say they're not
trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did,
but their version of events has splashed doubt on all
of us."

Rood said allegations that Kerry's accomplishments
were overblown are untrue and that Kerry devised an
attack strategy that was praised by their superiors.
The Tribune said Rood's account was supported by
military documents.

Rood wrote that Kerry recently contacted him and other
crew members, requesting that they go public with
their accounts of what happened. "I can't pretend
those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I
am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me
is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public
figures and who deserved to be honored for what they
did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never
again talk publicly about it."

On Friday, Kerry accused Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
of collaborating with the Bush campaign and asked the
Federal Election Commission to force the group to
withdraw the ad.

Brian Jones, a Bush campaign spokesman, said, "The
president has made it repeatedly clear that he wants
to see an end to all" advertising from outside groups.

Edwards had planned to focus his remarks on issues
touching voters in this region, where thousands of
jobs have been lost in the textiles and manufacturing
industries. The partisan crowd, which included
Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, roared its approval at
Edwards's economic message and his direct challenge to
Bush. Later in Charleston, W.Va., Edwards repeated his
remarks to another enthusiastic audience.

In Roanoke, World War II veteran George Keller, 82,
chairman of the Alleghany County-Covington Democratic
Committee, said, "I'm tickled to death that they're
deciding to fight back." He added: "You can't fake
medals. [Bush] should denounce those ads."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad: Kerry has accused group of illegally working with campaign

Contrary to the "conventional wisdom," the LNS does
not believe the Kerry-Edwards campaign was "too slow"
in responding to this Bush abomination character
assassination squad...No, the LNS thinks that this
disgusting episode is going to play out differently
than the hit on McCain in South Carolina...The LNS
thinks that Kerry-Edwards, as usual, exhibited
discipline and an extraordinary sense of timing...The
LNS thinks that Kerry-Edwards waited just long enough
for it to come to saturation and a runnning boil on
the air waves, then they struck back...forcefully...
decisively...Remember, Sen. John F. Kerry is not only
a warrior, a prosecutor and a statesman...JFK is a
hunter...

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad: Kerry has accused group of illegally working with campaign
Saturday, August 21, 2004 Posted: 11:43 PM EDT (0343
GMT)

ROANOKE, Virginia (CNN) -- A volunteer adviser has
quit President Bush's re-election campaign after
appearing in a veterans group's television commercial
blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's
involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that
retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an
ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry
campaign has accused the group of illegally working
with the Bush campaign.

As a so-called 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an
election campaign.

Kerry's camp calls it a front for the Bush campaign
and has urged the Federal Election Commission to cite
the group, the Bush campaign and the Republican
National Committee for violating federal election
laws.

The 527 groups are named for the federal provision
that makes such organizations tax exempt and allows
them to accept unlimited donations.

Before his departure, Cordier -- who spent six years
as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam -- was a member
of the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans' steering
committee, campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a
written statement issued Saturday night.

Cordier appeared in a commercial launched Friday by
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has accused Kerry
of lying about his Vietnam service. In it, he and
other Vietnam veterans accuse Kerry, a decorated Navy
officer, of selling out his old comrades by joining
the antiwar movement upon his return home.

"He betrayed us in the past. How could we be loyal to
him now?" Cordier asks in the ad.

Schmidt called Cordier "an American hero" but said he
would "no longer participate as a volunteer for
Bush-Cheney '04" because of his appearance in the
anti-Kerry ad.

"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his
involvement in the advertisement being run by a 527
organization," Schmidt said.

The Bush campaign called Kerry's FEC complaint
"frivolous" in a response released Saturday and urged
commissioners to dismiss it swiftly.

A previous ad by the swift boat group accuses Kerry of
lying to get his war medals: three Purple Hearts, a
Bronze Star and a Silver Star. Kerry and others say
the ads are false and misleading.

The latest ad, a 30-second spot released Friday, uses
segments from Kerry's testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. In the ad, Kerry
says, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut
off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed
villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn."

The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he
said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam
veterans conference. Instead, a swift boat group
member refers to the statements as "accusations" Kerry
made against Vietnam veterans.

An official transcript shows Kerry was referring to a
meeting in Detroit, Michigan, that was part of what
was called the Winter Soldier investigation. Kerry has
said he regrets some of the comments but stands by his
protests.

Two speak up for Kerry
Also Saturday, two former comrades of Kerry backed up
the candidate's account of the events that earned him
his Silver Star.

William Rood, an editor at the Chicago Tribune, writes
in Sunday's editions: "Kerry's critics, armed with
stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the
accounts of what happened [in 1969] were overblown.
The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying
to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but
their version of events has splashed doubt on all of
us."

Like Kerry, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade and
skipper of one of the three boats ambushed twice while
on patrol February 28, 1969. Kerry was awarded the
Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat
decoration, for his aggressive response to the
ambushes.

Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions in the same
clash, and writes that criticism of Kerry " impugns
others who are not in the public eye."

He says, "It's gotten harder and harder for those of
us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be
untrue, especially when they come from people who were
not there."

John O'Neill, who wrote a book challenging Kerry's
accounts of his service, said Saturday that SBVT was
not challenging Rood's commendation. But in a
statement issued the same day, he called Rood's
account "an obvious political move" and said the
group's accusations against Kerry were drawn from two
previous books about the Massachusetts senator.

"Anyone who compares the three books on the Silver
Star incident will see that they are substantially
identical in the facts," he said.

Rood says in the first-person article that Kerry asked
him to publicly discuss his account of that mission.

"I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but
that is not why I am writing this," he writes."What
matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who
are not public figures and who deserved to be honored
for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here
and to never again talk publicly about it."

Rood writes that Kerry was in charge of the mission
and discussed with the other two skippers how to
handle the inevitable ambushes.

"We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial
volley and had a clear fix on the location of the
ambush," he writes, "we would turn directly into it,
focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on
the attackers and beaching the boats."

Twice on that day Kerry ordered such a maneuver,
according to Rood. Each time the ambushes were
quelled.

O'Neill's book said Kerry shot a fleeing Vietnamese
teenager to win the award.

Rood disputes that, saying he checked with another
sailor on that mission and they agreed that "he was a
grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the [Viet Cong]
usually wore."

Wayne Langhofer, who now works at a gunpowder plant in
Kansas, said he also was present for the battle.

"I was with Kerry when he won his Silver Star, and as
far as I'm concerned, he did right," he told CNN on
Saturday.

CNN's Matthew Hoye and Phil Hirshkorn contributed to
this article.

Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong -- Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

William Rood, metro desk editor for the Chicago
Tribune, another name for the John P. O'Neill Wall of
Heroes...

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0408220343aug22,1,2916896.story?coll=chi-news-hed

JOHN KERRY'S WAR RECORD



Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong -- Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

By Tim Jones, Tribune national correspondent. Tribune
staff reporter Rick Pearson contributed to this report
from Crawford, Texas
Published August 22, 2004

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served
alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry
during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to
dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war
record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's
metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence
about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in
Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent
portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the
best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and
smear the reputations of veterans who served with
Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during
that 1969 mission, said that Kerry came under rocket
and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and
that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that
was praised by their superiors.

He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments
were "overblown" untrue.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not
trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did,
but their version of events has splashed doubt on all
of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us
who were there to listen to accounts we know to be
untrue, especially when they come from people who were
not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person
account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at
the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key
military documents, including his citation for a
Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing
after-action report written by the Navy captain who
commanded his and Kerry's task force and is now a
critic of the Democratic candidate.

Rood's previously untold story and the documents shed
new light on a key historical event that has taken
center stage in an extraordinary political and media
firestorm generated by a group calling itself the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Allegations in the book, co-authored by one of the
leaders of the group, accuse Kerry of being a coward
who fabricated wartime events and used comrades for
his "insatiable appetite for medals." The allegations
have fueled a nearly two-week-long TV ad campaign
against the Democratic nominee. Talk radio and cable
news channels have feasted on the story.

Animosity from some veterans toward Kerry goes back
more than 30 years, when Kerry returned from Vietnam
to take a leadership role in the anti-war group
Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Anger reached a
boiling point with Kerry's presidential nomination and
his own highlighting of his service during the war, a
centerpiece of his campaign strategy against President
Bush, who spent the war stateside in the Air National
Guard in Texas and Alabama.

A poll released Friday by the National Annenberg
Election Survey reported that more than half the
country has heard about or seen TV ads attacking
Kerry's war record, a remarkable impact for ads that
have appeared in only a handful of states.

Kerry strongly disputes the allegations, and on
Saturday a spokesman for his campaign, David Wade,
responded to Rood's account by saying, "The truth is
being told, and it's the same and only truth
documented by the Navy 35 years ago and remembered by
those veterans without a Bush political ax to grind."

Wade added that "the real truth being told by veterans
who've had the courage to stand up to the Bush
Republican attack machine is all the honor John Kerry
needs in his life."

Last week, Kerry called on the White House to denounce
the TV ads and accused Bush of relying on the Vietnam
veterans "to do his dirty work." On Thursday, Kerry
challenged Bush to a debate on their respective war
records. Democrats point to unresolved questions about
whether Bush in fact served all the time he was
credited with serving in Alabama.

The Bush campaign has denied any association with the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but so far has refused
to condemn the book and the group's TV ads. It had no
direct comment Saturday on Rood's version of events,
instead criticizing the Kerry campaign for alleging
that the Bush team was providing tacit support to the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and for not repudiating
all advertising by so-called 527 groups, political
organizations barred by law from coordinating their
efforts with campaigns.

"John Kerry knows that attack is false and baseless,"
said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt. "John
Kerry knows that the president has said [Kerry's]
service was noble service. John Kerry knows that there
is no connection between the Bush campaign and this
527 and . . . that President Bush has called on Sen.
Kerry to join him in condemning all of the shadowy 527
groups that are advertising."

Schmidt said Kerry "has remained silent" while
pro-Democratic 527 groups have run $62 million worth
of attack ads targeting Bush.

Kerry's campaign sought to turn up the heat on Bush
through an e-mail effort targeting veterans. The
effort resurrects Arizona Sen. John McCain's
complaints during the 2000 South Carolina Republican
presidential primary about Bush's failure to disavow
attacks on McCain's actions as a prisoner of war.

Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, said
Bush's refusal to disavow the advertising by the swift
boat veterans group was "an unfortunate and classic
move by a Bush-Rove campaign," citing the president's
senior political adviser, Karl Rove.

A report in Friday's New York Times disclosed
connections between the anti-Kerry vets and the Bush
family, Rove and several high-ranking Texas
Republicans. Some of the recent accounts from veterans
critical of Kerry have been contradicted by their own
earlier statements, the Times reported.

Rood's account also sharply contradicts the version
currently put forth by the anti-Kerry veterans. Rood,
61, wrote that Kerry had personally contacted him and
other crew members in recent days asking that they go
public with their accounts of what happened on that
day.

Rood said that, ever since the war, he had "wanted to
put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the
killing. . . . I have refused all requests for
interviews about Kerry's service--even those from
reporters at the Chicago Tribune."

"I can't pretend those calls [from Kerry] had no
effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this,"
Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is
hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who
deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is
to tell the story here and to never again talk
publicly about it."

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be
interviewed for this article. Rood wrote that he could
testify only to the February 1969 mission and not to
any of the other battlefield decorations challenged by
Kerry's critics--a Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts--because Rood was not an eyewitness to those
engagements.

Ambush scenario

In February 1969, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade
commanding PCF-23, one of the three 50-foot aluminum
swift boats that carried troops up the Dong Cung, a
tributary of the Bay Hap River. Kerry commanded
another boat, PCF-94, and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz, who
was killed in action six weeks later, commanded
PCF-43. Ambushes from Viet Cong fighters were common
because the noise from boats, powered by twin diesel
engines, practically invited gunfire. Ambushes, Rood
said, "were a virtual certainty."

Before this day's mission, though, Kerry, the tactical
commander of the mission, discussed with Rood and Droz
a change in response to the anticipated ambushes: If
possible, turn into the fire once it is identified and
attack the ambushers, Rood recalled Kerry saying. The
boats followed that new tactic with great success,
Rood said, and the mission was highly praised.

In the book "Unfit for Command," Kerry's critics
maintained otherwise. The book's authors, John O'Neill
and Jerome Corsi, wrote that Kerry's attack on the
Viet Cong ambush displayed "stupidity, not courage."
The book was published by Regnery, a conservative
publisher that has brought into print many books
critical of Democratic politicians and policies.

"The only explanation for what Kerry did is the same
justification that characterizes his entire short
Vietnam adventure: the pursuit of medals and ribbons,"
wrote Corsi and O'Neill. Later in the war, O'Neill
commanded the same swift boat Kerry had led. O'Neill
is now a leader of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In the book, O'Neill and Corsi said Kerry chased down
a "young Viet Cong in a loincloth . . . clutching a
grenade launcher which may or may not have been
loaded."

Rood recalled the fleeing Viet Cong was "a grown man,
dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."
There were other attackers as well, he said, and his
boat and Kerry's boat took significant fire.

After the attack, the task force commanding officer,
then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, sent a message of
congratulations to the three swift boats, saying their
charge of the ambushers was a "shining example of
completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be
the most efficacious [method] of dealing with small
numbers of ambushers," Rood said.

In the official after-action message, obtained by the
Tribune, Hoffmann wrote that the tactics developed and
executed by Kerry, Rood and Droz were "immensely
effictive [sic]" and that "this operation did
unreparable [sic] damage to the enemy in this area."

"Well done," Hoffmann concluded in his message.

But more than three decades later, Hoffmann, now a
retired rear admiral, has changed his story. Today he
is one of Kerry's most vocal critics, saying the
attacks against the ambushers 35 years ago call into
question Kerry's judgment and show his tendency to be
impulsive.

Rood challenges that criticism, recalling that the
direction for the actions they took on the river that
day came from the highest ranks of the Navy command in
Vietnam.

"What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with
the tone set by our top commanders," Rood said.

Asked for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill
argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of
events is not substantially different from what
appeared in the book. The account of the Feb. 28
attack draws heavily on reporting from The Boston
Globe, O'Neill said.

He said the congratulatory note from Hoffmann was
based on the belief that Kerry was under heavy fire
from the Viet Cong. But O'Neill claimed that "didn't
happen." Had Hoffmann known the true circumstances of
events that day, O'Neill said, he would not have
issued the congratulatory note. Attempts to reach
Hoffmann for comment were unsuccessful.

O'Neill said in a statement Saturday that, unlike
Rood, most of the officers who served with Kerry do
not support him.

"Bill Rood is one of 23 officers who served with John
Kerry at An Thoi," O'Neill said. "Seventeen of those
officers have condemned John Kerry."

He called Rood's criticism of "Unfit for Command"
"extremely unfair" and said Rood declined to be
interviewed for the book he and Corsi wrote.

"We strongly stand by the different judgments we
reached as to the advisability of beaching the Kerry
boat and chasing the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong
teenager," O'Neill said in the statement. "We also
stand by our judgment that while the action involved a
degree of courage, it was not compatible with the
description given to senior command nor worthy of the
Silver Star. We are joined in that judgment by many
Vietnam veterans who expressed similar views."

In his eyewitness account, Rood describes coming under
rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong on
the riverbank during two ambushes of his boat and
Kerry's boat.

Praise for the mission led by Kerry came from Navy
commanders who far outranked Hoffmann. Rood won a
Bronze Star for his actions on that day. The Bronze
Star citation from the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then
commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, singled out
the tactic used by the boats and said the Viet Cong
were "caught completely off guard."

Longtime debate

The war about the war between O'Neill and Kerry has
raged for more than three decades. O'Neill, who became
a lawyer in Houston after returning from Vietnam, was
recruited by the Nixon administration in 1971 to serve
as a political counterweight to Kerry, who by then had
left the military and was a vocal critic of the war.

The two debated the war on the Dick Cavett television
show in 1971, with O'Neill accusing Kerry of the
"attempted murder of the reputations of 2 1/2 million"
Vietnam veterans.

Rood acknowledged in his first-person account that
there could be errors in recollection, especially with
the passage of more than three decades. His Bronze
Star citation, he said, misidentifies the river where
the main action occurred.

That mistake, he said, is a "cautionary note for those
trying to piece it all together. There's no final
authority on something that happened so long ago--not
the documents and not even the strained recollections
of those of us who were there.

"But I know that what some people are saying now is
wrong," Rood wrote. "While they mean to hurt Kerry,
what they're saying impugns others who are not in the
public eye."
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

Military records support Kerry's account of Vietnam service

Three more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what?
The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. The US
military, over-extended and dis-illusioned, is TRAPPED
in a Mega-Mogadishu. The "liberation" of Iraq is a
foolish military adventure, predicated on LIES, perpetuated on the
cruelty, indifference and avarice of the Bush
Abmoination and enabled and sustained with the
complicity of the "US mainstream news media." The
Arab Street is ablaze with hate. The western alliance
has been seriously fractured. The US is isolated in
the world. US soldiers are taking the rap for war
crimes sanctioned by high officials in the Pentagon and
the White House. The CIA has been scapegoated both for
the the Bush abomination's pre-9/11 INCOMPETENCE and
their exaggeration, fabrication and deceit in the ramp
up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US
economy is backsliding, and worse, slipping toward a
precipice. The huge Federal surplus that Clinton-Gore
left behind them has been gutted, and we have been
plunged into hundreds of billions of dollars in
Federal decific this year, all for an irresponsible,
ill-timed tax cut two-thirds of which went to those
very few Americans earning of $200K a year.The price
of oil is only going to go up. All the major economic
indicators are in a tail-spin. The drip, drip, drip of
real scandals -- Abu Ghraib, Chalabi (yes, that was
him next to Laura at the SOTU), Plame, Enron and the
phoney "California energy crisis," Medifraud
(fraudulent numbers, and bribery on the floor of the
US Congress), the prostitution of the EPA, and
ESPECIALLY and in particular, Halliburton (before and
after Bush-Cheney seized power) -- are eroding their
own base in the Neo- Confederacy. Yes, Kerry-Edwards is
ahead in Missouri and Ohio and within the statistical
margin of error in North Carolina. Last week, while
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong) took a few days off in
Ketchum, Idaho, his tar heel shark, Sen. John Edwards
(D-NC) began the politically wet work. The
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident is "stacking the federal government with
friends and donors who are gutting regulations on U.S.
corporations," and putting "corporate interests ahead
of workers and the middle class." The logging and
timber industry gave more than $1.5 million to Bush
and got the right to log without the usual
environmental reviews. The coal industry gave $300,000
to Bush and got less protection against black lung
disease for workers. The chemical industry gave more
than $1 million to Bush and got reduced regulations on
chemicals exposed to workers. The auto industry gave
more than $300,000 to Bush and got eased rules on
reporting potential defects and a rule allowing
truckers to drive 11 hours a day. The restaurant
industry gave more than $1.2 million and got killed a
regulation intended to prevent their workers from
exposure to smoke. US citizens who want to attend
speeches of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident and his VICE _resident have to
sign loyality oaths. A FEMA worker and her husband are
handcuffed and taken away at a Bush-Cheney rally in
West Virginia because of what the message on her tee shirt.
A US Senator is routinely harrassed at airports. High government officials openly talk about cancelling the November election because of "terrorist
threats." MEANWHILE, the imagination of the "US
mainstream news media" has been captured by "Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth." OK. Let's talk about "Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth." The money for their ads
comes from the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident largest donor from Texas (not that
Kenny Boy is too hot to handle), their P.R. handler
used to work for Ken Starr, their own military
records, in ways to blatant for even the NYTwits or
the WASHPs to avoid, refute their disgusting
distortion of JFK's heroism, and yet, the increasingly
unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident refuses to
rebuke them...There is an Electoral Uprising coming in
November...There are no more red or blue states. There
are only red, white and blue states...We are moving,
as Barak Obama (D-IL) and Bill Clinton (D-AK) promised
at the DNC, toward "a more perfect union." E Pluribus
Unum.

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.htm

Posted on Fri, Aug. 20, 2004

Military records support Kerry's account of Vietnam service

BY Joseph L. Galloway

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military records back John Kerry's
account of his service in Vietnam and have backed at
least two of his accusers into a corner.

Kerry this week was forced to defend himself against
accusations by a group of fellow Navy veterans of
Vietnam that he was a liar and a coward. The charges
were made in a book and in an attack ad that polls
show have chipped away at Kerry's standing with
veterans in three critical states - West Virginia,
Wisconsin and Ohio.

The long-ago Vietnam War has suddenly become a central
issue in the presidential campaign. The attacks by the
group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have called into
account Kerry's conduct during the war, when he
volunteered for one of the most dangerous duties - the
so-called Brown Water Navy, which regularly penetrated
Viet Cong-controlled territory via the maze of
waterways in the sodden Mekong Delta.

Although the 15 veterans featured in the attack ad all
state "I served with John Kerry," none of them served
on the same boat with him. Those who did, such as
retired Chief Petty Officer Del Sandusky, 60, of
Clearwater, Fla., praise Kerry for his leadership and
credit him with keeping them alive to make it home.

"We are really upset at this stuff," Sandusky told
Knight Ridder. "They are calling us all liars. They
dishonor us and they dishonor all those who died over
there. They are getting awfully desperate. Last year
many of them were on board with us. Now they are
telling outrageous lies."

Kerry has said that members of the Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth lied when they said he inflated his role in
various combat actions in the Mekong Delta in 1968 and
1969 and had manipulated the award of three Purple
Heart medals for wounds and Bronze and Silver Star
medals for valor in combat.

Kerry released a stack of his military records -
including after-action reports, citations for his
medals, boat battle damage reports and his officer
efficiency reports. These records - and the military
records of at least one of his accusers - cast serious
doubt on some of the more inflammatory charges raised
by the group.

It didn't help the cause of the Swift Boat Veterans
group that some of them, including their leader,
retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, were on the record
praising Kerry for his service in Vietnam.

Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliott,
said in an attack ad: "John Kerry has not been honest
about what happened in Vietnam."

But during the Vietnam War, Elliott recommended Kerry
for the Silver and Bronze Star medals for valor in
combat and gave him the highest possible praise in his
officer efficiency reports.

"In a combat environment often requiring independent,
decisive action, LTjg Kerry was unsurpassed," Elliott
wrote in 1969. He went on to rate Kerry as "calm,
professional and highly courageous in the face of
enemy fire."

Elliott added: "(Kerry) emerges as the acknowledged
leader in his peer group." In 16 categories on Kerry's
officer efficiency report, ranging from professional
knowledge to moral courage to military bearing to
reliability, Elliott gave Kerry the highest possible
rating - "is not exceeded" - in 11 categories, and the
second highest, "one of the top 10" in five other
categories.

Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election
campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in
Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star
"for an act of courage."

Another critic, Larry Thurlow, a fellow Swift boat
commander in the Mekong Delta in 1969, disputed
Kerry's claim that his boat and others in the
five-boat patrol came under enemy fire during a March
13, 1969, mission that earned Kerry a Bronze Star.

Thurlow said that although one of the Swift boats was
disabled by a mine explosion, there was no enemy fire
from shore, as Kerry and others testified, and that
Kerry's account was "a total fabrication." Thurlow
said in an affidavit: "I never heard a shot."

However, a citation for the Bronze Star with valor
awarded to Thurlow for that same mission stated that
his actions "took place under constant enemy small
arms fire which (Thurlow) completely ignored" while he
provided assistance to the damaged Swift boat and the
wounded aboard.

Thurlow said he had lost his medal citation for that
incident over two decades ago and stood by his account
that there was no enemy fire at the time.

His account was further called into question by a
battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat,
PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report
listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the
superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat.

The Swift boat veterans also have cast doubt on
Kerry's account that a second mine explosion damaged
his boat, PCF-94, and blew an Army Special Forces
officer, Jim Rassmann, overboard. Kerry's Bronze Star
was awarded for his rescue of Rassmann, who credited
Kerry with saving his life.

Among the records was a battle damage report filed the
following day, March 14, which stated that PCF-94 had
three windows blown out, radios and radar inoperable,
the boat's auxiliary generator inoperable, screws
curled and chipped, aft helm steerage control not
working. The boat was judged incapable of executing
patrols without repairs.

In the TV ad Swift Boat veteran Adrian Lonsdale
declared Kerry "lacks the capacity to lead." Yet he,
too, appeared to support Kerry in 1996, saying of him:
"He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

In a month when the Democratic nominee had hoped to
avoid running any ads to conserve funds for the final
sprint this fall, Kerry strategists instead prepared
to spend nearly $200,000 responding to the attack ads
of the veterans group in key states.

The bulk of the funding for the Swift Boat veterans'
group comes from wealthy Texas Republicans.

A new ad was scheduled to begin running shortly,
focusing this time on Kerry's testimony against the
Vietnam War in 1971.

A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s r

The Bush cabal is desperate. North Carolina is in play. Ohio, Fraudida and Misery are slipping away. These viscious lies are straws for their rapid rabble to clutch at. They are fighting for their own base, not the center or the "undecided." It is finished, unless they finish a significant % of the US electorate before the national referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident. The "US mainstream news media"
pretend that this farce hurts Kerry-Edwards. IF there
is an election, they are going to be proven wrong, but
not only wrong, also IRRELEVANT...

Clease the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/

Kerry says Bush broke the law in TV ad dispute President's campaign denies ties to vets' group
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 7:10 p.m. ET Aug. 20, 2004

A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.

Kerry’s complaint to the Federal Elections Commission
about the ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth alleges "overwhelming evidence”
that the veterans group is “coordinating its
expenditures on advertising and other activities
designed to influence the presidential election with
the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry spokeswoman Allison
Dobson told NBC News.

The complaint comes at the end of a week in which
Kerry himself accused Bush of having the Swift Boat
veterans do “his dirty work” and media reports have
exposed connections between Bush, his family and other
high-profile Texas politicians. In a Thursday speech,
the Massachusetts senator said: “The fact that the
president won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you
everything you need to know.”

Steve Schmidt of the Bush campaign said charges that
Bush is in league with the veterans’ group are
“absolutely and completely false. The Bush campaign
has never and will never question John Kerry’s service
in Vietnam.” But the Bush campaign has, in fact,
refused to specifically disavow the Swift Boat
veterans’ ad, in which fellow Vietnam veterans say
Kerry acted dishonorably to win the Bronze and Silver
Stars and three Purple Hearts that he was awarded for
his service in Vietnam.

RELATED STORY
WashPost: Some veterans still bitter

Formal ties would be illegal
Any formal ties between the Bush campaign and the
veterans group would be against the law. Swift Boat
Veterans for the Truth is organized as a non-party,
independent political group under section 527 of the
Internal Revenue Code, and coordination between a 527
group and a presidential campaign is illegal.

The Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney
campaign filed a similar complaint last March that
accuses the Media Fund, America Coming Together and
several other anti-Bush groups of illegal use of
so-called soft money (unlimited donations) and of
illegal coordination with the Kerry campaign. And
three campaign finance watchdog groups also have filed
FEC complaints against the Swift Boat veterans group.

Any legal resolution of the matter would likely take
months, if not years, campaign law experts told
MSNBC.com.

In a campaign shadowed by the war on terrorism and in
Iraq, Kerry’s valorous combat experience is a
cornerstone of his campaign. After using the
Democratic National Convention to improve his poll
ratings on national security, Kerry remained silent as
the criticism led to growing indications — much of it
anecdotal, some in polling, party officials say — that
his gains were eroding.

His medals are supported by Navy documents and the
memories of all but one of the swift boat crewmates
who served beneath Kerry, then a Navy lieutenant. The
anti-Kerry group includes several veterans who say
they witnessed Kerry’s actions from nearby swift
boats.

Although the ad was released early in the month and
created a stir then, more contention over it erupted
this week when Kerry made his “dirty work” remarks at
a Boston campaign stop. Those remarks came the day
after the Washington Post published a story that
showed official military records countered the
statements made by one of Kerry’s most vocal critics,
Larry Thurlow. Thurlow has disputed Kerry’s Bronze
Star-winning assertion that he came under fire during
a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory. But
Thurlow’s own military records contained several
references to small arms fire that day, according to
The Washington Post.

Thurlow said in a statement Thursday that his records
were based on Kerry’s account.

Knowing several news organizations, including the
Post, were investigating the claims of anti-Kerry
veterans, the Democratic campaign swung into action
late Wednesday — rewriting the candidate’s speech to a
firefighters’ union overnight, flying two of his swift
boat colleagues to Boston and producing a new campaign
commercial, despite earlier plans to stay off the air
until September.

The 30-second ad features a former Green Beret saying
Kerry saved his life under fire. “He risked his life
to save mine,” Jim Rassmann says.

On Friday, another newspaper report detailed ties
between the veterans' group, Bush and his family,
other high-profile Texas politicians and Bush’s chief
political aide. The piece, in the New York Times, also
listed inconsistencies in some of the veterans' own
public statements on their regard for Kerry.

How the group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth "came into existence is a story of how veterans
with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar
statements in the early 1970s allied themselves with
Texas Republicans," The Times said.

"A series of interviews and a review of documents show
a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile
Texas political figures and President Bush's chief
political aide, Karl Rove," the Times reported.
"Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry 'unfit' had
lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

As Kerry denounced the criticism as “lies about my
record,” aides privately acknowledged that they and
their boss had been slow to recognize the damage being
done to his political standing.

Three Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars
Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and
Silver Star for Vietnam War combat. Bush served
stateside in the Texas Air National Guard. Both men
say the other served honorably, but their supporters
are pouring tens of thousands of dollars into
television ads and other tactics to insist otherwise.

MoveOn.org, a liberal group funded by Kerry
supporters, is airing an ad accusing Bush of using
family connections to avoid the Vietnam War.

Kerry advisers said they had heard from several
Democratic politicians that voters were starting to
ask questions about the candidate’s war record. The
politicians urged him to fight back. Internally, there
was an initial reluctance from senior advisers for
Kerry to respond — because they believed that Bush
would condemn the critical ad, or that the allegations
would blow over.

As for the candidate himself, this was personal, aides
said. He had heard the group was raising money for
more ads, and was tired of his integrity being
assaulted.

“Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my
service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the
Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts,” Kerry said.
“Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still
is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a
wound in Vietnam.”

Kerry aides said they will maintain the offensive
through surrogates, if not Kerry himself. Democrats
welcomed the response.

“Out of desperation, the Bush campaign has picked the
wrong fight with the wrong veteran,” said Jim Jordan,
former Kerry campaign manager who now runs an outside
group airing ads against Bush. “Today’s the start of
the mother of all backlashes.”

Kerry surrounded himself with friendly veterans and
union workers to criticize the group airing the ad
against him.

Bush and the White House refused to condemn the
anti-Kerry ad, which stopped airing this week. When
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked Kerry to condemn the
MoveOn.org ad, Kerry quickly did so — though he has
personally raised questions about Bush’s Vietnam-era
service.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is funded in
large part by Bob Perry, a Texas Republican, has
knocked the Democratic nominee's campaign off stride
with a small but effective advertising buy in the
battleground states of Ohio, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. The group spent about $500,000 on the ad,
but its allegations that Kerry exaggerated his combat
record to win medals have been on the Internet, the
24-hour cable channels and, most recently, the
nation's major television networks and newspapers.

Bush leads in veterans' votes
During the week ending Aug. 8, 966,000 people visited
the anti-Kerry group's Web site, 34,000 fewer than
those who visited Kerry's official site, according to
Nielsen/Net Ratings. The new CBS poll found Kerry
winning 37 percent of veterans' votes to Bush's 55
percent. (The two were tied at 46 percent after last
month's Democratic National Convention, where Kerry
highlighted his service.)

"They have been very effective at using the August
lull to drive a story" in news outlets, said Rep. Rahm
Emanuel (D-Ill.). Kerry, who planned to conserve
resources by not buying television ads this month,
will spend at least $180,000 to respond, his aides
said.

Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

Even the NYTwits, as hard as they try, cannot blur the
naked truth of it, or avoid telling it...

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 20, 2004
Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations
that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to
win medals and build a political career, Senator John
Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements
categorically false and branding the people behind
them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a
measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the
forefront of the presidential campaign. It has
advanced its cause in a book, in a television
advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows,
all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record,
a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how
veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's
antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied
themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign"
- a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show
a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile
Texas political figures and President Bush's chief
political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its
initial financing from two men with ties to the
president and his family - one a longtime political
associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the
foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential
library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr.
Bush's father for his debate when he was running for
vice president provided them with strategic advice.
And the group's television commercial was produced by
the same team that made the devastating ad mocking
Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he
and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988
presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately
paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby
killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted
in his war medals. But on close examination, the
accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be
riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material
offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by
official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had
lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr.
Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley,
provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F.
Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the
group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's
antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say
anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good
man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston
Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled
the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It
took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the
group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in
1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough
re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that
the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an
act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L.
Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out
against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement
about the "bravado and courage of the young officers
that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told
the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown
Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift
boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an
evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was
one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in
11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and
decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the
second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In
written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed,"
"beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his
peer group."

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up
the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a
call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander
in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the
new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the
war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a
search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the
kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a
spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in
1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was
issued a letter of censure for exercising undue
influence on cases in the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded
Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's
"Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's
reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders
whose military approach had led to the deaths of
countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several
Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the
bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" -
the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they
saw it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of
us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to
John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same
Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him
dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon
administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett
Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry
in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent
the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a
successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with
some of the state's most powerful Republicans and
building an impressive client list. Among the
companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the
energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor
of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the
Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state
Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.

Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that
he had come to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan
Crow and Bob J. Perry, through longtime social and
business contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the
top donor to Republicans in the state, according to
Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that
tracks political donations. He donated $46,000 to
President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and
1998. In the 2002 election, the group said, he donated
nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political
committees.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said
through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were
longtime friends, though he said they had not spoken
for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been
associates since at least 1986, when they both worked
on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.

Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years.
"I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill
said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for
comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30
years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow, the
seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state
according to the Texans for Public Justice, has
donated nowhere near as much money as Mr. Perry to the
Swift boat group. His family owns one of the largest
diversified commercial real estate companies in the
nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given money
to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers.
He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush
Presidential Library Foundation.

One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr.
Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas
and followed him to the White House as deputy counsel
for the Department of Commerce, according to her
biography on the law firm's Web site.

Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican
ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor.
They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar
worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan
administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was
married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations
executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that
ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John
McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's
in crucial states during their fierce primary battle.
The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air,
was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr.
Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the
Reagan White House, where the president's aides had
enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare
George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984.
She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms.
Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had
ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was
running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House
during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said
that she had been there only once, in 2002, when
Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week
Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent an hour in
the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White
House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr.
Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman,
public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that
she had worked with other administration officials,
Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you
refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said
of the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising
agency that made the group's television commercial:
Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria,
Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and
for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the
"tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman
for the Swift boat veterans said the organization
decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of
its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas
in April to share outrage and plot their campaign
against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale,
who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned
as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry
began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said.
"Not just for me, but for many of them who had not
heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to
investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to
find "some neutral way of actually questioning people
involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral
to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr.
Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a
pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about
the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The
investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail
for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version
was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making
it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any
returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was
a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my
life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had
collected as well as additional veterans rallied by
Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded
group gathered in Washington to record the veterans'
stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an
affidavit and sent to him to sign and have notarized.
But the validity of those affidavits soon came into
question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver
Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was
not forthright" in the statements that had led to the
award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as
saying that he felt he should not have signed the
affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that
reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans
gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak
publicly since then.

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for
Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry,"
has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery,
a conservative company that has published numerous
books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr.
O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the
book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many
books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged
that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic,
anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing
Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other
contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr.
Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I
know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart
because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson
does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above
Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the
group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the
medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person
administering treatment" for the injury, the form is
signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several
years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to
treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry
had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the
treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm
he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess
you'll have to take my word for it."

The group also offers the account of William L.
Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the
book that he had been on the small skimmer on which
Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He
contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a
grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had
been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon,
say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and
Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three,"
Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson
said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a
conversation with another veteran earlier this year
and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte
himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a
spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat
came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in
February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned
the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy
solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front
of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased
the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing
a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr.
Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a
loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They
say the charge to the beach was planned the night
before and, citing a report from one crew member on a
different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed
about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports
that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr.
Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for
recognition, have previously said that a medal would
be awarded only if there was corroboration from others
and that they had thoroughly corroborated the
accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were
reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news
conference, adding, "It was a very complete and
carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements
Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense"
and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a
group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river
when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and
knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a
hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around
to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared
during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story
and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with
helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and
that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the
action was what anyone would have expected of a
sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann
recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member
of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."

"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added,
"that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own
reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of
the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's
the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who
said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr.
Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said
the initials refer to the person who had received the
report at headquarters, not the author.

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it
received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire,
and later intelligence reports indicate that one
Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded,
reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said
the boat was hit the day before. He also received a
Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for
Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did
not recall what the citation said but that he believed
it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors
on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire,
he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports.
The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an
ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he
declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But
a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy
small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy
bullets flying about him." The citation was first
reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the
group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they
have focused primarily on the one allegation in the
book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to
put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas
in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate
in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a
defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it
was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into
Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that
Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement
against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans,
they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during
his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their
affidavits and their television commercial focus
mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of
the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to
describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and
became an antiwar activist. And they are offended,
they say, by the gall of his running for president as
a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and
a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was
saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first
advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his
Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the
atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle.
Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true,"
he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should
expect loyalty from him."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home |
Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
Back to Top

Sidney Blumenthal: Isn't This A Democracy?

The LNS Editor in Chief, like LNS hero Sen. Robert
Byrd (D-WV), carries a small copy of the US
Constitution (including the Amendments) with him
wherever he goes. Of course, the LNS Editor in Chief
also carries a small copy of the UN Charter (and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights) with him
wherever he goes...In a climate in which Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D-Camelot) is being harrassed by the Dept of
Homeland Insecurity whenever he boards a plane, we
suggest you do the same...At least until the November
referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and
CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident...IF the impending Electoral
Uprising is somehow short-circuited, that small copy
of the US Constitution will be either little more than
something to include in a time capsule or a call to
the streets...Remember, 2+2=4, 2+2=4, 2+2=4..."Let us
not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082004C.shtml

Isn't This a Democracy?
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon

Thursday 19 August 2004

At staged "Ask President Bush" events, audience
members have to pledge their allegiance to his
reelection to gain admission. Bush has forgotten who's
sovereign in America.

Before attending a rally to hear Vice President Dick
Cheney, citizens in New Mexico were required to sign a
political loyalty oath approved by the Republican
National Committee. "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic)
endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
States." The form noted: "In signing the above
endorsement you are consenting to use and release of
your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President
Bush."

Around the country, Bush is campaigning at events
billed as "Ask President Bush." Only supporters are
allowed entrance. Talking points are distributed to
questioners. In Traverse City, Mich., a 55-year-old
social studies teacher who wore a small Kerry sticker
on her blouse had her ticket torn up at the door. "How
can anyone in the United States deny someone entry?"
she asked. "Isn't this a democracy?"

At every "Ask President Bush" rally, Bush repeats
the same speech, touting a "vibrant economy" and his
leadership in a war where "you cannot show weakness."
He introduces local entrepreneurs who praise his tax
cuts. (More than 1 million jobs have been lost in his
term, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.) Then
Bush calls on questioners. More than one-fifth of them
profess their evangelical faith or denounce gay
marriage. In Niceville, Fla., one said: "This is the
very first time that I have felt that God was in the
White House." "Thank you," replied Bush. Another: "Mr.
President, as a child how can I help you get votes?"
In Albuquerque, he received this question: "It's an
honor every day when I get to pray for you as
president." And this one: "Thank God we finally have a
commander in chief." Others repeat attack lines on
John Kerry's military record to which Bush responds
with an oblique but encouraging "thanks."

Bush's overriding strategy is to bolster his
credential as a decisive military figure and to impugn
his opponent's manhood. In his latest TV commercial,
he says, "We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must
do everything in our power to bring an enemy to
justice before they hurt us again." But, according to
the Washington Post, for the last two years he has
uttered the elusive Osama bin Laden's name only 10
times, and "on six of those occasions it was because
he was asked a direct question ... Not once during
that period has he talked about bin Laden at any
length, or said anything substantive." At "Ask
President Bush" events, he mentions Sept. 11 only to
raise the threat of Saddam Hussein.

Vice President Dick Cheney (who had five draft
deferments during Vietnam, saying he had "other
priorities") sneered at John Kerry for even using the
word "sensitive" with respect to counterterrorism. Not
one war was "won by being sensitive," mocked Cheney.
Kerry, in fact, had called for fighting "a more
effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations and brings them to our side and
lives up to American values in history." Cheney's
distortion is calculated to attempt to portray Kerry
as somehow effeminate.

At the same time, a Republican front group of
Vietnam veterans financed by a major Bush contributor
is running an ad campaign claiming Kerry's account of
his military record is false. But not one of these
veterans served with him on his boat. They remain
enraged that he had the temerity to return home
decorated with combat medals to become a leader
against the war.

During the Vietnam War, of course, Bush famously
used his father's connections to get a posting as a
pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, known as the
"Champagne Unit" because it was filled with the sons
of privilege. After refusing to submit to a routine
drug test, he was suspended and never flew again. He
got himself transferred to the Alabama National Guard,
but apparently never turned up for his tour of duty.
Not one person has stepped forward to claim he served
with Bush there. Since then, he has withheld his full
military records. Now he encourages smears that claim
a genuine war hero, wounded three times, has lied
about his service and is a coward. But this is more
than a classic case of projection. The more profound
issue is not who served in Vietnam and who dodged. It
is whether the president is a sovereign.

Since the birth of the American party system,
presidential candidates have always gone directly to
the sovereign people, who are the only source of
legitimacy and power, to make their case. After the
Democratic Convention, Kerry traveled from New England
to the Pacific Northwest doing just that. Not one of
the hundreds of thousands who attended his open-air
rallies had to pledge allegiance to him, and he
encountered organized Bush hecklers as part of the
price. At Bush's rallies he is the packaged president
as pseudo-populist. But these controlled environments
reflect his deeper view of the presidency as
sovereign, preempting democracy.

Floundering in the polls, without a strategy for
Iraq, unwilling to say the name of bin Laden, he is
always secure in the knowledge that the cheering
multitudes before him have been carefully selected.
Strutting and swaggering on the stage as though he has
conquered the crowd, he plays to true believers. But a
55-year-old social studies teacher from small-town
Michigan who would not bend her knee had her ticket to
see her president ripped up. "Ask President Bush" has
crystallized the essential underlying question, framed
succinctly by the greatest American poet of democracy,
Walt Whitman, who wrote, "The President is there in
the White House for you, it is not you who are here
for him."

About the writer: Sidney Blumenthal, a former
assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and
the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column
for Salon and the Guardian of London. Join Sid
Blumethal along with Ann Richards, David Talbot and
others on the Salon Cruise.

CIA Expert: We could have stopped him

From America's best newspaper...

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1287015,00.html

We could have stopped him

The CIA has taken much of the blame for the security
lapses that led to 9/11 and the false intelligence on
Iraq's WMDs. But now one spy has broken ranks to point
the finger at the politicians - and warn that the war
on terror could plunge the US into even greater
danger. By Julian Borger

Friday August 20, 2004
The Guardian

These are not happy times at the CIA. In the space of
a few short months, two official reports have found
the agency principally to blame for failing to prevent
the September 11 al-Qaida attack and for claiming that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is no
doubt there is a lot of blame to go round. The twin
fiascos rank as the worst intelligence failures since
the second world war. But the two reports, by the
September 11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence
Committee respectively, were also testaments to
political expedience. Both panels were made up of
Republican and Democratic loyalists who reached a
political compromise by going relatively easy on both
Clinton and Bush administrations, and focused on
institutional culprits. The CIA, without a defender
after the resignation in July of its long-serving
director, George Tenet, presented the easiest target.
Yet most of the agency's rank and file believe they
have done little wrong. They were the first to raise
the alarm over the danger posed by Osama bin Laden,
long before the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
In 1996 they set up a unit called the Bin Laden Issue
Station, codenamed "Alex", dedicated to tracking him
down, only to have one operation after another aborted
as too politically dangerous.

There are a lot of angry spies at Langley, and one of
the angriest is Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence
officer who led the Bin Laden station for four years.
While some of his colleagues have vented their
frustrations through leaks, Scheuer has done what no
serving American intelligence official has ever done -
published a book-length attack on the establishment.

His book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the
War on Terror, is a fire-breathing denunciation of US
counter-terrorism policy. In it, Scheuer addresses the
missed opportunities of the Clinton era, but he
reserves his most withering attack for the Bush
administration's war in Iraq.

He describes the invasion as "an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed
no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer
economic advantage". He even goes so far as to call on
America's generals to resign rather than execute
orders that "they know [...] will produce more, not
less, danger to their nation". Bin Laden, he believes,
is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much
of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for
what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel
almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in
the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi
peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard
access to cheap oil.

"America ought to do what's in America's interests,
and those interests are not served by being dependent
on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand
to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less
open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin
Laden's ability to grow. Right now he has unlimited
potential for growing." What makes these comments the
more challenging to the Bush administration is that
they come from a self-described conservative and
instinctive Republican voter.

It seems extraordinary that Scheuer's bosses allowed
him to publish his book at all. They had already
permitted him one book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes,
written anonymously, but that was a more analytical
work on Bin Laden and al-Qaida. Imperial Hubris is
altogether different: a bitter polemic against
orthodoxy and the powers that be.

Scheuer was given the green light only on condition
that he stuck to a set of ground rules: he would
continue to write as Anonymous, he would not reveal
his job or employer, and he would refer only to
information that is already "open source" - ie in the
public domain. Inevitably, however, given the
controversy surrounding the book, his identity has
been leaked (first by a liberal weekly, the Boston
Phoenix, then this week by the New York Times). Even
now, he sticks closely to his employers' guidelines,
refusing formally to confirm his identity, while
describing his employers vaguely as "the intelligence
community". (It is for this reason that he is not
permitted by the CIA to be photographed except in
silhouette.) Having initially been allowed to give
media interviews to promote his book, Scheuer was told
earlier this month that he has to ask permission for
every interview and to submit an outline of what he is
going to say. So far, no interviews have been granted
under the new guidelines.

His interview with the Guardian is one of Scheuer's
last before being gagged. Burly, bearded and in jeans
and a loose shirt, his forceful vocabulary is a far
cry from the cautious obfuscation that is the native
tongue in Washington. Not that he minds rocking the
boat a little. "If getting in somebody's face [helps]
prevent the death of 3,000 Americans in New York or
the sinking of the Cole in Yemen, or two embassies in
East Africa, then I'm in your face," he says.

His bosses at the CIA have not confronted him over the
book, other than to tell him what he can or cannot do
with the press. "I don't think they get it yet. I
still think there's a large group in the American
intelligence community who talk about the next big
attack but really believe 9/11 was a one-off," he
says. "I think they believe their own rhetoric that
they've killed two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership,
when they killed two-thirds of what they knew of."

Scheuer says that nearly three years after the
September 11 attacks the US intelligence team
dedicated to tracking down Bin Laden is still less
than 30 strong - the size it was when he left in 1999.
The CIA claims that the Bin Laden team is hundreds
strong, but Scheuer is insistent that the apparent
expansion is skin-deep. "The numbers are big, but it's
a shell game. It's people they move in for four or
five months at a time and then bring in a new bunch.
But the hard core of expertise, of experience, of
savvy really hasn't expanded at all since 9/11."

The morass in Iraq, meanwhile, is a "big factor in not
allowing us to develop much expertise" on Bin Laden.
"I think [director of central intelligence George
Tenet] said we had enough people to do two wars at
once, and clearly that was a fantasy."

The conclusion of the September 11 Commission - that
the al-Qaida plot might have been broken up if the
intelligence agencies had cooperated better and shared
more information - was accompanied by recommendations
for the creation of a national counter-terrorist
centre and a national director of intelligence to
coordinate the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Scheuer
believes this is a classic bureaucratic fix. "I've
never known a dysfunctional bureaucracy made better by
being made bigger." His answer to the al-Qaida threat,
unsurprisingly, is to give his old unit at the CIA,
the Bin Laden station, more resources and more
firepower.

It is a solution forged by the accumulated bitterness
of missed opportunities. In one year under his watch,
from May 1998 to May 1999, Scheuer reckons the US had
up to a dozen serious chances to kill or capture Bin
Laden. Only one was taken - a missile attack on an
Afghan training camp in August 1998 - but either the
al-Qaida leader was not there, or he had left before
the missiles landed.

Months earlier, however, Scheuer believes there was a
far better opportunity to grab Bin Laden. The CIA had
made a deal with a group of Afghan tribesmen to raid
Bin Laden's headquarters near Kandahar and then take
him to a desert landing strip, where a US plane would
take him either to America or another country for
trial. The plan, rehearsed several times over many
months, was in Scheuer's view "almost a perfect
operation in the sense that there was no US hand
visible". But on May 29 1998, according to the
narrative in the September 11 Commission's report,
Scheuer was informed that the operation had been
cancelled because of the risk of civilian casualties.

The pattern was repeated on December 20 the same year,
when Scheuer's agents were virtually certain that Bin
Laden would be staying the night at a guest house in
the Kandahar governor's compound. President Clinton's
principal national security advisers once more decided
that the danger of collateral damage was too high.
Afterwards Scheuer wrote to the top CIA agent in the
region, Gary Schroen, saying that he had been unable
to sleep after this decision. "I'm sure we'll regret
not acting last night," he predicted. Yet another
opportunity, in Afghanistan, was missed in 1999.

Other intelligence veterans are more sympathetic to
the policymakers' dilemma, pointing out that if the US
had shot and missed Bin Laden, while killing others,
the country would have been condemned around the
world, potentially winning more recruits for al-Qaida.
"Mike's is the viewpoint of the soldier versus the
viewpoint of a general," argues Vincent Cannistraro, a
former chief of operations at the CIA's
Counter-Terrorist Centre. "There are political
judgments made at a higher pay grade. I've been at
both sides of that equation and they are difficult
judgments to make."

Scheuer counters that the policymakers are just not
asking the right questions. "The question is always
what happens if we do this and we fail. The question
is never what happens to Americans if we don't try
this," he says. "When I took my oath of office, it was
to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of
the US. It wasn't 'to preserve and protect and defend
as long as you don't kill an Arab prince, as long as
you don't offend the Europeans, as long as you don't
hit a mosque with shrapnel'." Scheuer's constant
complaints eventually got him removed from his
position at the head of the Bin Laden unit and shifted
to a more nebulous training role.

To his detractors in the administration, Scheuer is no
more than a rogue spy whose career did not turn out
the way he had hoped. Certainly he is bitter at being
"sidetracked for the past five years without any sort
of explanation from my employers", but he insists that
the issues he raises are far more important than his
career. He says his recent adoption of a child
deepened his anxiety about the future of the next
American generation if the country sticks to its
present course.

But even if the US scores some significant victories
against al-Qaida, Scheuer believes the conflict with
Islamic extremism will continue to spiral without a
fundamental rethink of US priorities in Iraq and a
relationship with Israel that "drains resources, earns
Muslim hatred and serves no vital US national
interest". It is a depressingly pessimistic
assessment. Ultimately, "we only have the choice
between war and endless war".

· Imperial Hubris is published today by Brassey's,
price £12.95.

Yes, WW III is just a few stupid chess moves away...

Did you know there were already several thousand
Chinese troops in the Sudan? (And yes, they are on the
wrong side of that horror.) Yes, WW III is just a few stupid chess moves away...Security is the central
issue of this campaign: National Security, Economic
Security and Environmental Security. Are you safer
than you were four years ago? No. Are we discussing
it? Not really. Mostly, this week, the "US mainstream
news media" is spending far more time pretending to
"sort out" the military record of Sen. John F. Kerry
(D-Mekong Delta), as if there were any shred of
credibility to the savage Bush cabal's filth machine
attacks against him...What is happening in this
country? How many of your fellow citizens realize that
we are heading into a "Perfect Storm" of global
warming, AIDS in Africa and Asia, a "holy war" with
the Arabs, an oil war with China, a broken and
drifting Western Alliance, deepening political
tensions and economic conflict with the EU, rapidly
dwindling natural resources, and an UN*civil* war with
the Expanded Confederacy here at home...we need a
Lincoln, and we do not have any more time to
waste...we have already lost four years we could not
spare...War is peace? Love is hate? Sound familiar?
"The hour is getting late."

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpts0815,0,692217,print.story?coll=ny-opinion-headlines

1.3 billion reasons to worry about oil

American leaders have good reason to worry about the
price of oil. Oil price shocks can play a decisive
role in ending a presidency, as in the cases of
Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. The
Nov. 2 election may well hinge on the cooling of the
economic recovery caused by sustained high levels of
oil prices. But that's not really what the next
president should be so concerned about. The real oil
shocks -- much more damaging and sustained than ever
before -- will come a bit later, but much sooner than
anyone had expected, from a part of the world not even
discussed seriously in the current campaign:

China.

With 1.3 billion people, a phenomenal rate of economic
growth, and an insatiable consumer demand for cars,
China will soon come into direct conflict with the
United States over oil, the world's most valuable and
increasingly scarce industrial commodity.

The pressure on supply will inevitably jack up prices
to levels that would make today's motorists and
electricity customers blanch.

The conflict is unavoidable. It could create
geopolitical tensions and cause dramatic shifts in
U.S. foreign policy that may overshadow today's
preoccupation with global terrorism. And there are no
easy solutions to avert it, only regrets over this
nation's missed opportunities in decades past to
develop viable alternative energy sources to lessen
U.S. dependence on imported oil.

Any such program, initiated today, will take far too
long to bear fruit in time to avoid an economic and
political clash with China over oil.

Just a quick glimpse at the figures involved makes
clear the dimensions of the problem. China's economic
growth has bubbled along at a steamy pace of 8 to 10
percent a year for the past decade.

With that growth, private auto sales in that vast
nation have skyrocketed from token levels 10 years ago
-- only 220,000 were sold as recently as 1999 -- to
nearly 2 million this year. Last year alone, China's
automobile sales increased by a staggering 69 percent.

More cars than U.S. by 2030

It's estimated that China could have nearly 30 million
automobiles by 2010. By 2030, China is expected to
have more cars than the United States and import as
much oil as the U.S. does today.

Already, China has overtaken Japan as the world's
second biggest importer of oil, after the United
States. And its appetite is huge and growing. As
Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates
puts it, "China has gone from being a minor player in
world commodity markets, if a player at all, to being
the decisive dynamic factor today. In terms of oil, 40
percent of the entire growth in oil demand since the
year 2000 has been China."

In this quarter alone, China's demand for oil is
projected to increase 21 percent. That follows a
19-percent increase during the first quarter of this
year.

Nor are Chinese consumers, especially those in the
growing middle class produced by a booming technology
sector, particularly interested in fuel-efficient
small cars. Gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles are
not simply an American passion. They are in great
demand in China, too.

In a report from China broadcast on National Public
Radio in June, a 35-year-old woman in Beijing, Sia
Lan, an executive in China's expanding advertising
industry, said she, like many other of her friends,
prefers to drive SUVs. "I have a sedan car, too, which
I used to drive to work because my Jeep guzzles a lot
more gas," she said. "But I prefer my Jeep because I
can see over all the other cars."

A Chinese environmentalist, Liang Congjie, is
distressed by the implications. "If each Chinese
family has two cars like U.S. families, then the cars
needed by China, something like 600 million vehicles,
will exceed all the cars in the world combined."

The prospect is daunting, not only for the effects it
would have on the world's production of greenhouse
gases to accelerate global warming, but also for the
incredible pressure it would put on the world's oil
supply.

Just 10 years ago, China was self-sufficient in oil
and actually exported small quantities to other Asian
nations. Now, imports account for more than one- third
of Chinese oil consumption. And rather than relying on
foreign oil companies to supply it with oil, China
wants its own oil firms to go directly overseas to
secure supply sources it can exploit itself.

Clash with U.S. in Mideast

This is where China's quest for more oil will come
directly in conflict with the concerns of U.S. foreign
policy -- particularly in the Middle East.

During the Cold War, China stayed away from the Middle
East. That region's geographic distance and political
instability deterred it from securing ties with its
major oil-exporting nations and, at least until a
decade ago, the old China of ox carts and bicycles did
not need to import oil.

But now the Middle East and relations with
oil-producing nations have become key interests in
China's foreign policy, perhaps second only to its
obsession with Taiwan.

Exploring the world

Today, nearly 60 percent of China's oil imports come
from that region. Through bilateral agreements, rather
than international mechanisms, and using arms sales
and dual-use technology transfers -- nuclear
equipment, guidance systems for missiles -- to cement
ties, China has obtained oil exploration and
exploitation rights in some of the most turbulent
nations in the Middle East and North Africa -- Iran,
Sudan, Libya, Algeria and, until the recent war, Iraq.

The case of Sudan, where international concern for the
humanitarian disaster in the Darfur region is
intensifying, puts China's role in perspective. It
illustrates how Beijing's oil interests could come in
direct conflict with U.S. policy.

Chinese troops in Sudan

While Washington has begged the world -- and pressured
the United Nations Security Council -- to send
peacekeeping troops to Sudan to quell the sectarian
fighting that has put a million refugees at risk,
China has already deployed 4,000 troops to Sudan. But
those troops are there only to protect China's
investment in an oil pipeline. China is concerned that
civil unrest could wreck the oil project. It has
actually been hostile to U.S. pressure to impose
economic sanctions on the Arab government in Khartoum,
a key Chinese client, buyer of Chinese arms and
partner in oil exploration.

It was also telling that China was a major opponent at
the Security Council of the war against Iraq, in large
part because China had obtained prospective contracts
with Saddam Hussein for exclusive exploitation of some
oil fields. But perhaps the most worrisome prospect
for U.S. policymakers is China's burgeoning attempt to
secure ties with Saudi Arabia, the world's arbiter of
the oil market, taking advantage of the Saudi regime's
tensions with Washington since the 9/11 attacks.

All these are disquieting harbingers of Beijing's
coming conflict with the United States over oil. It
will come sooner than expected and the United States
is not prepared for it. This president or his
successor must, at the very least, alert the nation
about its consequences, initiate a national
conversation about it and encourage a program of
energy conservation to alleviate the obvious economic
pressures we will all face.

China's need for oil is the proverbial 800-pound
gorilla in the room, and no one seems willing to
confront it or even acknowledge it -- until it's too
late.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

Ottawa Business Journal: A key forward-looking gauge of the U.S. economy fell for the second month in a row in July, according to a report Thursday, suggesting the nation's recovery still faces a bumpy road.

It's how the Media reports on the Economy, Stupid.

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/281248160680619.php

U.S. leading indicator down again in July
By Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Thu, Aug 19, 2004 10:00 AM EST

A key forward-looking gauge of the U.S. economy fell for the second month in a row in July, according to a report Thursday, suggesting the nation's recovery still faces a bumpy road.

The U.S Conference Board said its Composite Index of
Leading Economic Indicators fell in July by 0.3 per
cent to 116. That followed a revised decline of 0.1
per cent in June. June's decline was the first in more
than a year.

Analysts polled by Bloomberg news expected a smaller
decline in July of 0.1 per cent, on average.

The index is designed to forecast where the U.S.
economy will be in the next three to six months.

"The latest decline in the Leading Index reflects a
loss of forward momentum," Conference Board economist
Ken Goldstein said in the report. "There are growing
concerns about the high cost of gasoline and milk, as
well as worries about where economic growth will come
from now that tax refunds have been spent and
short-term interest rates are rising."

In the past six weeks, the U.S Federal Reserve stepped
in for the first time in four years to raise its key
lending rate. The two hikes raised the key rate from
one per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Bloomberg News quoted Credit Suisse First Boston Corp
economist Jay Feldman as saying it's "still premature
to say the drop in the index is meaningful, but the
risks to the economy are to the downside, mostly
because of the rise in crude oil prices".

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta): "More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson. When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do today."

Yes. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) has seen the
whites of their eyes, and has commenced firing...It
has begun...This is not Dukakis, or Mondale, or
McGovern, or even the old Al Gore, this is the new
Lincoln for the coming *Civil* War...

Associated Press: Sen. John Kerry accused President
Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to
challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting,
"He wants them to do his dirty work."
Defending his record, the Democratic presidential
candidate said, "Thirty years ago, official Navy
reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded
me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts."
"Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still
is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a
wound in Vietnam."
In addition to Kerry's speech before an audience of
firefighters, his campaign released a new 30-second
campaign commercial that features a former Green Beret
saying the young Navy lieutenant saved his life under
fire...
In his speech, Kerry employed a wartime metaphor.
"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson.
When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn
your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do
today."
Speaking of the organization airing the ads that
challenge his war record, Kerry said, "Of course, this
group isn't interested in the truth and they're not
telling the truth. ...
"But here's what you really need to know about them.
They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars
from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a
front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the
President won't denounce what they're up to tells you
everything you need to know. He wants them to do his
dirty work."
Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhaw Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.ap/index.html

Kerry blasts Bush over attack ads
Thursday, August 19, 2004 Posted: 10:41 AM EDT (1441
GMT)

Sen. John Kerry speaks Thursday to members of the
International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston.

Manage alerts | What is this?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry accused
President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups
to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam,
asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work."

Defending his record, the Democratic presidential
candidate said, "Thirty years ago, official Navy
reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded
me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts."

"Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still
is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a
wound in Vietnam."

Kerry received five medals for his service in Vietnam
a generation ago, but his record has come under
campaign challenge in television commercials aired by
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, funded by supporters of
the president.

Bush and the White House have refused to condemn the
ads, despite calls to do so -- from Sen. John McCain,
R-Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, as well
as from Democrats.

Senior Democrats, including some inside the
presidential campaign, have urged Kerry to respond
forcefully to the criticism, fearing that if left
unanswered, it could hamper his quest for the White
House.

In addition to Kerry's speech before an audience of
firefighters, his campaign released a new 30-second
campaign commercial that features a former Green Beret
saying the young Navy lieutenant saved his life under
fire.

Recalling when his boat came under attack more than 30
years ago, Jim Rassmann says, "It blew me off the
boat. All those Viet Cong were shooting at me. I
expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the
river, he risked his life to save mine."

Aides said the commercial would air in Ohio, West
Virginia and Wisconsin, three battleground states. The
decision to advertise even in a limited fashion marked
a change in course for the campaign, which had hoped
to remain off the air for August to conserve cash for
the fall campaign.

In his speech, Kerry employed a wartime metaphor.

"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson.
When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn
your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do
today."

Speaking of the organization airing the ads that
challenge his war record, Kerry said, "Of course, this
group isn't interested in the truth and they're not
telling the truth. ...

"But here's what you really need to know about them.
They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars
from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a
front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the
President won't denounce what they're up to tells you
everything you need to know. He wants them to do his
dirty work."

Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said, "That charge
leveled by Senator Kerry is absolutely and completely
false."

"The Bush campaign has never and will never question
John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The president has
referred to John Kerry's service as noble service,"
the Bush spokesman said.

Kerry said, "Of course, the president keeps telling
people he would never question my service to our
country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded
attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have
a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my
answer: 'Bring it on."'

Kerry's comments drew boisterous cheers from members
of the union that had endorsed him last year at a time
his candidacy was struggling.

Rassmann, too, played a pivotal role in Kerry's
campaign turnaround last winter. With the kickoff Iowa
caucuses days away, the former Green Beret contacted
the campaign and volunteered to appear with the
Massachusetts senator and talk about his action in
Vietnam.

Rassmann has since become the best known member of a
group of veterans that Kerry calls his "band of
brothers" -- a stress on military service designed to
erode the traditional Republican campaign advantage on
national security issues.

Kerry's response came as The Washington Post reported
that a Vietnam veteran who claims Kerry lied about
being under fire during a Mekong Delta engagement that
won Kerry a Bronze Star was under constant fire
himself during the same skirmish according to the
man's own medal citation.

The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that
he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star in the engagement
and that Thurlow's citation says he also was under
attack, the Post reported.

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy swift boat
during Vietnam. He swore in an affidavit last month
that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued
Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow's records, obtained by the Post under the
Freedom of Information Act, include references to
"enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed
at all five boats in the flotilla that day. In his
Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a
damaged swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about
him."

Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who
have aired a television advertisement attacking
Kerry's war record.

Thurlow, a registered Republican, said he was angry
with Kerry for anti-war activities after his return to
the United States, especially his claim that U.S.
troops committed war crimes with the knowledge of
their officers up the chain of command.

Thurlow told the Post that he got the award for
helping to rescue a boat that was mined. He said he
believed his own award would be fraudulent if it was
based on coming under enemy fire.

He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of
at least some of the language used in the citation.

Members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the
truth. Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies
firing at him from both banks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights
reserved.This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

F.A.I.R.: Media's picture of Kerry based on RNC distortions

It's the Media, Stupid.

Break the Corporatis Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/caged-hamster.html

Extra!, August 2004
Covering the "Caged Hamster"

Media's picture of Kerry based on RNC distortions

By Peter Hart

"Like a caged hamster, Senator John Kerry is restless
on the road," wrote the New York Times' Jodi Wilgoren
(6/13/04), beginning a piece that promised "authentic
insights" into the Democratic presidential candidate.
Aside from the banalities (Kerry dislikes wearing
suits on hot, humid days, and uses a cellphone more
than John Glenn did when he ran for president in
1984), what's most striking about the piece is how
closely it mirrors the Republican caricature of Kerry,
portraying him as an elitist with "a prep-school
cultivated competitive sensibility," whose speeches
"are filled with multisyllabic upper-crust phrasing,"
and as a "contradictory" character who "is anything
but simple and straightforward." Even his playing a
musical instrument is portrayed as somehow weird and
un-American: "And where former President Bill Clinton
plays cards and President Bush turns to the treadmill,
Senator Kerry strums his Spanish classical guitar in a
kind of musical meditation."

Wilgoren's piece, with its effect of amplifying Bush
campaign allegations about Kerry, is typical of 2004
presidential campaign coverage. This phenomenon is
seen not only in the media's frequent forays into
trivia, but also in their attempts to cover
substantive issues—as in February, when the Republican
National Committee (2/22/04) released a list of
weapons systems that Kerry allegedly "voted against."

Partisan TV pundits like Fox News Channel's Sean
Hannity (3/1/04) quickly echoed these charges,
claiming, "He's voting against every major weapons
system we now use in our military." The partisan
Hannity's participation in the RNC's attack was
perhaps to be expected, but he was not the only media
figure to pass along the Republican allegations
without examination. CNN anchor Judy Woodruff
(2/25/04) framed the issue this way in an interview
with Rep. Norm Dicks (D.-Wash.): "The Republicans list
something like 13 different weapons systems that they
say the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The
Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile
and on and on and on."

Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that
most of the weapons "votes" weren't individual votes
at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991
appropriations bill. Woodruff responded to this
information with surprise: "Are you saying that all
these weapons systems were part of one defense
appropriations bill in 1991?"

But Woodruff wasn't alone. When Bush/Cheney campaign
strategist Ralph Reed explained to CNN anchor Wolf
Blitzer (2/3/04) that Kerry's record was one of
"voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems," Blitzer
responded to Reed's deceptive spin by turning to guest
Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee and
saying, "I think it's fair to say, Ann, that there's
been some opposition research done."

One of the few reporters to take a serious look at the
RNC's list—on which 10 of the 13 items refer to the
single 1991 vote on an appropriations bill—was Slate's
Fred Kaplan (2/25/04). Kaplan noted that 16 senators,
including five Republicans, voted against the bill,
and concluded that the claim against Kerry "reeks of
rank dishonesty." Kaplan also pointed out that at the
time of the 1991 vote, deeper cuts in military
spending were being advocated by some prominent
Republicans—including then-President George H.W. Bush
and Dick Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the
time.

As Kaplan noted, Cheney appealed for more cuts from
Congress: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and
horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on
weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of
tight budgets and new requirements." Cheney went on to
name the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters—all
of which would later appear on the RNC's list—as
systems that "we have enough of."

For many reporters, though, such facts weren't allowed
to get in the way of what they seemed to consider the
standard back-and-forth of a political campaign. Fox
News Channel's Carl Cameron (2/27/04) was typical:
"With the GOP attacking John Kerry's votes to cut
defense over the years, the Democratic frontrunner,
once again, counter-attacked what he calls the
president's 'mishandling' of the war on terror."
Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler (2/27/04)
likewise noted that "the Bush campaign has criticized
Kerry in recent days for voting against some increases
in defense spending and military weapons programs
during his 19-year congressional career." NBC anchor
Tom Brokaw (3/2/04, MSNBC) also seemed to accept the
charges at face value, noting that "the vice president
just today was talking about [Kerry's] votes against
the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and
also weapons systems. Isn't [Kerry] going to be very
vulnerable come the fall when national security is
such a big issue in this country?"

"Kerry propaganda"

Brokaw alluded to a new allegation against Kerry that
emerged in March: According to the Bush campaign, Sen.
Kerry had tried to cut $1.5 billion from the
intelligence budget, a move Bush called a "gutting."
Though you wouldn't have known it from most of the
coverage, the Washington Post noted on March 12 that
Kerry's proposed cut was actually smaller than the
eventual $3.8 billion cut passed by the Republican-led
Congress, which focused on a mismanaged intelligence
program that had accumulated excess funds. But some
outlets aren't interested in such nuance. Later that
day, on Fox News Channel's Special Report, panelist
Juan Williams seemed to have read the Post article,
arguing that Republicans had pushed the same kinds of
cuts. Fellow Fox panelist Mort Kondracke cut him off:
"That's Kerry propaganda."

It's good to see that pundits recognize the concept of
propaganda; that might have helped them to interpret
the Bush campaign's claim that Kerry has voted "for
higher taxes" more than 350 times. This number, as
commentators like Michael Kinsley pointed out
(Washington Post, 3/24/04), is deeply misleading,
counting votes to keep tax rates the same, or even to
lower them by less than Republicans wanted, as votes
for "higher taxes." Even with this dubious definition,
the Republican list counts the same votes multiple
times.

Nonetheless, some journalists allowed the charge to be
repeated without correction. CBS reporter Byron Pitts
(3/5/04), for example, announced a Republican claim
that the Bush tax cuts would be in jeopardy under a
Kerry administration, then turned to Commerce
Secretary Don Evans, who stated, "Senator Kerry has
voted for tax increases over 350 times." While Evans
exaggerated an already misleading claim, CBS viewers
were not told that there was anything questionable
about the 350 figure.

On rare occasions, some outlets do step back and take
a look at the big picture on truth in campaign
advertising. A Washington Post report (5/31/04) on
Bush and Kerry ads used rather blunt language in
concluding that many of the claims made about Kerry by
the Bush campaign—on issues like the Patriot Act, No
Child Left Behind and gasoline taxes—are simply false.
According to the Post, the ads "distort Kerry's record
and words to undermine the candidate or reinforce
negative perceptions of him," with some ads amounting
to a "torrent of misstatements."

When NBC Nightly News (4/6/04) invited Brooks Jackson
of Factcheck.org to debunk misleading campaign ads,
Jackson called the taxes allegation "so bogus," and
dismissed another anti-Kerry ad about his alleged
support for a gas tax increase. But anchor Brian
Williams neutralized this attempt to set the record
straight: "It is hard to tell fact from fiction," he
concluded.

French connection?

CNN's Inside Edition took this practice of amplifying
GOP talking points to a new low with a segment
(5/25/04) devoted to the notion that John Kerry seems,
well, French. "He caught flak early in the campaign
for his French connections," explained anchor Judy
Woodruff. The "flak" seemed to consist of Republicans
making fun of Kerry for either "looking French" or
speaking the French language fluently. Anchor Wolf
Blitzer got the ball rolling by announcing that "the
French, of course, among other things helped to strain
the alliance between the United States and its
European allies over the war in Iraq." CNN then
explained that Kerry has French family, and has
summered in that country.

Then CNN turned the microphones on the American
public. Random people interviewed on the street
offered negative impressions of the French; they're
uppity, arrogant, and even "international." That last
word is trouble, at least to Woodruff: "A tricky word
to be saddled with if you're running to lead a
war-time White House and your relatives across the
pond have not embraced the war."

Viewers may have been left wondering what to make of
such a story: Various Republicans and right-wing
pundits have done their best to turn a bigoted view of
French people into a campaign issue. CNN took that
bigotry and, rather than denouncing or criticizing it,
decided to expand on it, connecting Kerry to various
negative stereotypes about French people. Ironically,
near the end of the piece Woodruff remarks that
connecting Kerry to these negative feelings about the
French might be dirty politics: "Some accused the GOP
of speaking in code." The same charge could be made
against CNN.

Kerry's "Missteps"

When not amplifying Bush talking points, media were
focusing on Kerry's alleged gaffes or misstatements,
ranging from convoluted explanations of his Senate
voting record to whether or not he owns a sports
utility vehicle. But while these relatively trivial
aspects of John Kerry's record have come under intense
and prolonged media scrutiny, journalists have shown a
reluctance to highlight much more significant
falsehoods by Kerry's main rival, George W. Bush (FAIR
Media Advisory, 5/20/04).

Time magazine's May 10 story, "What Kerry Means to
Say," is a typical example of recent Kerry coverage.
After noting Kerry's opportunities to score points
against a White House besieged by questions about
Iraq, the September 11 commission and the Supreme
Court, reporter Karen Tumulty asks, "But what did the
challenger find himself talking about for three days?
The answer is whether or not Kerry threw away his
medals or his ribbons in the early 1970s."

Tumulty attributes this story line to a personal flaw
in Kerry: The campaign has often been about the "traps
that the Bush campaign is adept at setting for Kerry,
and the personality trait that makes Kerry walk right
into them." Of course, Kerry "found himself" talking
about the distinctions between ribbons and medals
because these were the topics that journalists were
asking him about. And on occasions like the "medals"
flap, the press corps seemed to smell blood, latching
on to stories of dubious importance that seem to
portray Kerry as faltering or changing course.

Thus, before the medals "controversy," media interest
was centered on claims about Kerry's medical records
from Vietnam. After Kerry pledged on NBC's Meet the
Press to release medical records from his service in
Vietnam, ABC World News Tonight (4/21/04) reported
that Kerry's service "has become the subject of
controversy" because some of his critics were raising
doubts about his first Purple Heart. When the medical
records did little to bolster their case, the press
corps switched to another GOP spin point: Kerry didn't
get the records out fast enough. ABC's report included
a soundbite from RNC chair Ed Gillespie: "When
President Bush committed to release all his military
records on the same program, he kept his word. John
Kerry should do the same." The fact that Bush took
five days after his Meet the Press appearance to get
his records out while Kerry took three did not deter
media outlets from doing stories on this nonexistent
issue. (Bush has yet to release his pay records or his
final personnel evaluation, claiming that they are no
longer available—Salon, 2/18/04—surely an issue of
greater weight than how many days a document release
took.)

Throughout the various reports of Kerry "missteps" is
the sense that the Kerry campaign is in a state of
disarray, and unable to deal with such problems: "Bad
Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture," claimed one New
York Times headline (4/1/04); "Kerry Struggling to
Find a Theme, Democrats Fear," claimed another piece a
month later (5/2/04).

The microscopic scrutiny the press corps pays to
Kerry's statements is jarring, considering the
obviously lenient attitude journalists takes when it
comes to Bush's much more important "flip-flops." A
Time magazine piece (4/12/04) wondered why Kerry's
alleged inconsistencies were more important than
Bush's. The magazine offered one explanation: "How
tight the label sticks depends a lot on the impression
voters have already formed, which means that a less
well-known candidate can be vulnerable in ways a
familiar one may not be." Not mentioned was the rather
significant role played by the press corps in
determining whether such a label "sticks."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was this article helpful to you?

It was made possible by the subscribers to Extra!.

Please subscribe and support our work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra! | FAIR Home | Contact Us | Search
©Copyright by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.

Gene Lyons: Meanwhile, the Kerry-Edwards duo are drawing large, volatile crowds. It’s not news that Democrats are energized, but the big turnout may tell more about the race’s momentum than Kerry’s steady climb in "swing state" polls.

Why listen to the innane and duplicitous drivel of
Bill Schnookerd and Jeff Greenfold (SeeNotNews' lead
propapunditgandists) when you can revel in the
insights of the incomparable Gene Lyons...
Enjoy this reality-check from the campaign trail, and
keep the DNC exhortation of another great
American from Arkansas (Bubba) in your consciousness,
"Remember the Scripture, Be Not Afraid."

Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat Gazette: As the
incumbent, Bush is conducting one of the oddest
campaigns in American history. Because he can’t easily
run on vanishing jobs, humongous budget deficits and
the mess in Iraq, or say much about the future, what’s
he going to promise, bigger tax cuts? Bush preaches to
the converted at invitation-only events limited to
campaign volunteers, congregations from conservative
churches and people willing to sign party loyalty
oaths. Anybody wearing a John Kerry T-shirt is hustled
off the premises. Avoiding the national press, he
holds so-called "Ask President Bush" sessions at which
preselected voters toss him verbal bouquets. Miss
America contestants face tougher cross-examination...
Meanwhile, the Kerry-Edwards duo are drawing large, volatile crowds. It’s not news that Democrats are energized, but the big turnout may tell more about the race’s momentum than Kerry’s steady climb in "swing state" polls.

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Editorial.php?storyid=22035

Thursday, August 19, 2004
Playing not to lose
Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004

As the presidential campaign drifts

through the August doldrums,

President Bush appears to be playing not to lose. In
sports, the phrase is used to criticize teams that
play too timidly. In politics, it means waiting for
your opponent to make a blunder. As the incumbent,
Bush is conducting one of the oddest campaigns in
American history. Because he can’t easily run on
vanishing jobs, humongous budget deficits and the mess
in Iraq, or say much about the future, what’s he going
to promise, bigger tax cuts? Bush preaches to the
converted at invitation-only events limited to
campaign volunteers, congregations from conservative
churches and people willing to sign party loyalty
oaths. Anybody wearing a John Kerry T-shirt is hustled
off the premises. Avoiding the national press, he
holds so-called "Ask President Bush" sessions at which
preselected voters toss him verbal bouquets. Miss
America contestants face tougher cross-examination. In
the aptly named Niceville, Fla., one fellow announced,
"I’m 60 years old and I’ve voted Republican from the
very first time I could vote. And I also want to say
this is the very first time that I have felt that God
was in the White House."

Blessedly, Bush did appear uneasy with the notion he
might actually be God, cleverly diverting attention to
his brother, Jeb, the Florida governor. When a woman
in Beaverton, Ore., asked him to pray for the state
because of its high proportion of "unchurched"
citizens, Bush awkwardly reminded her that "people can
choose church or not church, and they’re equally
American." Thank God for that.

Besides avoiding skeptics and collecting warm fuzzies,
such rallies hold another advantage for Bush: Slimy
insinuations by GOP dirty-tricks ops like the Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth come from other people’s
mouths. Also at Beaverton, Bush took a question from a
guy, who claimed to have served six tours in Vietnam,
who questioned Kerry’s Purple Hearts. "We’ve got a
candidate for president out here with two
self-inflicted scratches," he said, "and I take that
as an insult."

Actually, Kerry earned three Purple Hearts during his
second tour in Vietnam and carries shrapnel in his
leg. Bush, whose own Pentagon records show no evidence
he drilled with his National Guard unit in 1972, had a
swell chance to repudiate the Swift Boat calumnies
paid for by Texas Republicans, contradicted by
voluminous military records and publicized by Merrie
Spaeth, the widow of his 1994 gubernatorial running
mate, the late Tex Lezar. "Thank you for your
service," he said. "Six tours? Whew. That’s a lot of
tours."

If Bush had a rock band, he could dub his campaign the
"No Class" tour and sell T-shirts. Which, come to
think of it, illuminates his dilemma. The purpose of
Bush’s restricted-access events is to generate
feel-good images on local TV. But ask anybody who’s
seen the Rolling Stones live if it was more
stimulating than an HBO concert. There’s a visceral
excitement at live campaign rallies that can’t be
matched by TV.

To prevail, Bush needs to win over voters who didn’t
support him in 2000 or didn’t vote at all. Campaigning
in his own traveling White House Rose Garden won’t get
it done.

Meanwhile, the Kerry-Edwards duo are drawing large,
volatile crowds. It’s not news that Democrats are
energized, but the big turnout may tell more about the
race’s momentum than Kerry’s steady climb in "swing
state" polls.

Even Kerry’s convoluted speaking style may be turning
to his advantage. Two recent attempts by Bush and Dick
Cheney to portray him as a "flip-flopper" may have
awakened a slumbering press corps. From inside the
bubble, Bush claimed that Kerry had voted for the Iraq
war, morphed into an "anti-war" candidate, then
flipped back.

But a careful analysis by Slate’s Will Saletan showed
that Kerry’s stance hasn’t changed: It was right to
give the president authority to threaten force to make
Iraq admit United Nations arms inspectors, wrong of
Bush to alienate U.S. allies and stampede to war. On
MSNBC’s "Hardball," Chris Matthews confronted a Bush
spokesman with repeated showings of a video clip GOP
imagineers had twisted to distort Kerry’s meaning. If
that kind of journalism becomes trendy, Bush may have
to appear at country clubs only. Meanwhile, Cheney
went on rightwing talk radio to mock Kerry for backing
a more "sensitive" war on terror. Laughing, he said,
"It strikes me the two words don’t really go together,
sensitive and war. If you look at our history, I don’t
think any of the wars we’ve won were won by us being,
quote, ‘ sensitive. ’" Same show, minutes later: Why
weren’t U.S. troops storming the Imam Ali shrine in
Najaf where Shiite militiamen are holed up? "Well,
from the standpoint of the shrine," Cheney said,
"obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very
much aware of its sensitivity."

• Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock
author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," Bereuter said.

Powerful and courageous condemnation...from a
Republican congressman from NEBRASKA...Rep. Doug
Bereuter (R-NE) wrote them in a letter to his
constituents...There are no more red states or blue
states, there are only red, white and blue states for
the national referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE
and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and
incredibly shrinking _resident...BTW, Bereuter (who
LNS Foreign Correspondent Dunston Woods as dubbed Rep.
Barricuda) is Vice Chairman of Porter Goss' House
Intelligence Committtee...Hmmm...

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html

Retiring GOP congressman breaks ranks on Iraq
Nebraska's Bereuter calls war 'a mistake'
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Breaking ranks with his party and
reversing his earlier stance, a senior Republican
lawmaker who is retiring said Wednesday the military
strike against Iraq was "a mistake," and he blasted a
"massive failure" of intelligence before the war.

The unexpected four-page statement came from Rep. Doug
Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was
vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a
panel that reviewed much of the evidence the Bush
administration cited before going to war.

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now
that the inadequate intelligence and faulty
conclusions are being revealed, that all things being
considered, it was a mistake to launch that military
action, especially without a broad and engaged
international coalition," Bereuter wrote in a
four-page letter to his constituents.

"The cost in casualties is already large and growing,
and the immediate and long-term financial costs are
incredible."

Bereuter was particularly critical of the prewar
intelligence, which described an arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. But no such weapons have
been found since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Bereuter voted in support of an October 2002
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but
he said that vote was based on what he had been told
about the weapons threat from Iraq.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was
intentionally misconstrued to justify military
action," Bereuter said.

After 26 years on Capitol Hill, Bereuter is retiring
next month, and he will become the president of Asia
Foundation.

Congressional Republicans appeared surprised and angry
at Bereuter's comments.

Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Illinois, a member of the
intelligence panel, described Bereuter as "very
bitter" for having been passed over in recent years to
head the intelligence and international relations
committees. He suggested Bereuter's comments were a
parting shot to House GOP leaders and President Bush.

An aide denied Bereuter was motivated to write the
letter because he didn't get the appointments.

Rep. James Gibbons, R-Nevada, who is also on the
intelligence panel, said Bereuter's new conclusions
are wrong.

"The facts don't change. Iraq was a dangerous place,"
Gibbons said. "Mr. Bereuter is entitled to his
opinion."

Bush officials tried to downplay the congressman's
statement.

"He is not an opinion maker or someone who has taken a
leadership role. I don't think you can take this as a
sign his comments are a barometer of other Republican
thinking," one Bush political aide said.

Bereuter's critique of the administration on Iraq was
sharp.

He said the administration was wrong to disband the
Iraqi army -- because so many of its members joined
forces with the insurgents -- and was wrong to rely on
the Defense Department instead of the State Department
to spearhead reconstruction and the interim
government.

He also said the administration was wrong to ignore
military leaders who warned many more troops would be
needed in Iraq to maintain the postwar peace.

"Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and
there is no easy and quick way to end our
responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger
future problems in the region and, in general, in the
Muslim world," Bereuter said.

Bereuter said it was important for the executive and
legislative branches of government to learn from the
"errors and failures" relating to the war in Iraq and
its aftermath.

Some Democrats see Beureter's comments as a political
plus in part because he argued the president should
have gone to war in Iraq with a broader international
coalition, as Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has said.

But Bush aides pointed out a key difference between
the two that could benefit the president politically:
Kerry, answering a direct challenge from Bush, said
recently he does not regret voting to authorize war.

Bush officials said they are in constant contact with
congressional Republicans. They said they want to to
keep these lawmakers engaged in the president's
campaign, and behind his argument that even knowing
what he knows now, war in Iraq was the right thing to
do.

CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html

Al Gore: 'Boiling Point': Who's to Blame for Global Warming?

Another US soldier died in Iraq today. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. MEANWHILE, the Global Warming story that should be one of the major stories of the last four years, i.e., leading the evening news and capturing the front page headlines, is instead relegated to the NYTwit book reviews. And the man who was elected US President in 2000, has been relegated to writing a book review that relates to his signature accomplishment, the Kyoto Protocols, instead of leading the US and the world thru Kyoto and beyond. Yes, the national security issue (identified as such by the Clinton-Gore administration) that should be at the top of the list of priorities for the US federal government relegated to further *study* on the part of the Bush abomination and the psuedo-scientists of the Corporatist cabal, and of course the "US mainstream news media" does not challenge them, despite the concerned consensus of the world's scientific community....Yes, Rome burned while Nero fiddled, now the Earth itself is on a slow broil, while the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident plays PNACkle...There is no more compelling reason to vote for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong) and in the process to repudiate not only the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident but also the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader (and
his INEXCUSABLE LIE that there was no difference
between Gore and Bush), yes, yes...think about
it...Almost 1000 US soldiers killed have been killed so far in a
foolish military adventure predicated on LIES, many thousands injured, many maimed for life, the US isolated in the world, the Arab Street ablaze with
hate, the Western Alliance seriously fractured, the Geneva Accords abandoned and the stench of Abu Ghraib on high officials and on the White House itself the US military disillusioned and over-extended, hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal deficit this year alone to float a tax break two-thirds of which went to the wealthiest Americans (those making over 200K a year), and the looming naming of a Chief Justice Scalia or a Chief Justice Thomas as well as the packing of the court well to the Right if there is a second term for the Bush abomination...and so much more...but perhaps worst of all, FOUR YEARS LOST in the struggle to come to grips with Global Warming and our addiction to fossil fuels...

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704G.shtml
'Boiling Point': Who's to Blame for Global Warming?
By Al Gore
The New York Times

Sunday 15 August 2004

The blend of passionate advocacy and lucid analysis
that Ross Gelbspan brings to this, his second book
about global warming, is extremely readable because
the author's voice is so authentic. When Gelbspan
first encountered the issue as a reporter nine years
ago, he writes, he had no inkling of how it would
change his life. But as he put together the evidence
of the global climate crisis he describes in this
book, he found himself pulled inexorably to do more
than simply write about it. So he now feels called to
a kind of mission: to describe what is happening, to
single out the specific failures and misdeeds of
politicians, energy companies, environmental activists
and journalists who share responsibility for our
predicament, and then propose bold solutions that --
unlike more timid blueprints already on the public
agenda -- would in his view actually solve the
problem.
For a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the top of
his game, this is a career detour requiring courage I
greatly admire. Moreover, he candidly describes how,
as he opened himself to the implications of what he
was learning in his dogged pursuit of this story, he
has undergone something of a personal transformation.
He writes that it has become "an excruciating
experience to watch the planet fall apart piece by
piece in the face of persistent and pathological
denial." He describes how mountain glaciers around the
world are melting, most of them rapidly. And he cites
early examples of environmental refugees like those
created in recent weeks in Bangladesh, vulnerable to
catastrophic flooding as sea levels rise.

In the course of this transformation, Gelbspan has
become a different kind of reporter, one who recalls
the great reforming journalists of the first decade of
the 20th century -- Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell,
Lincoln Steffens and others -- who not only reported
on political corruption and corporate excesses but
connected them to larger destructive patterns that had
developed in the economy and politics of their time.
They agitated for policy reforms, many of which were
enacted into statutes when they became part of the
progressive movement's agenda: antitrust laws, the
Food and Drug Administration, railroad regulation,
wage and hour laws, workmen's compensation and child
labor laws, to name a few.

It is in that spirit that Gelbspan pursues solutions
for climate change that can "also begin to reverse
some very discouraging and destructive political and
economic dynamics as well."

Part of what makes this book important is its
indictment of the American news media's coverage of
global warming for the past two decades. Indeed, when
the author investigates why the United States is
virtually the only advanced nation in the world that
fails to recognize the severity of this growing
crisis, he concludes that the news coverage is "a
large reason for that failure."

At a time when prominent journalists are writing mea
culpas for allowing themselves to be too easily misled
in their coverage of the case for war in Iraq,
Gelbspan presents a devastating analysis of how the
media have been duped and intimidated by an aggressive
and persistent campaign organized and financed by coal
and oil companies. He recounts, for example, a
conversation with a top television network editor who
was reluctant to run stories about global warming
because a previous story had "triggered a barrage of
complaints from the Global Climate Coalition" -- a
fossil fuel industry lobbying group -- "to our top
executives at the network."

He also describes the structural changes in the news
media, like increased conglomerate ownership, that
have made editors and reporters more vulnerable to
this kind of intimidation -- and much less aggressive
in pursuing inconvenient truths.

Gelbspan's first book, "The Heat Is On" (1997),
remains the best, and virtually only, study of how the
coal and oil industry has provided financing to a
small group of contrarian scientists who began to make
themselves available for mass media interviews as
so-called skeptics on the subject of global warming.
In fact, these scientists played a key role in
Gelbspan's personal journey on this issue. When he got
letters disputing the facts in his very first article,
he was at first chastened -- until he realized the
letters were merely citing the industry-funded
scientists. He accuses this group of "stealing our
reality."

In this new book, Gelbspan focuses his toughest
language by far on the coal and oil industries. After
documenting the largely successful efforts of
companies like ExxonMobil to paralyze the policy
process, confuse the American people and cynically "
'reposition global warming as theory rather than
fact,"' as one strategy paper put it, he concludes
that "what began as a normal business response by the
fossil fuel lobby -- denial and delay -- has now
attained the status of a crime against humanity."

I wouldn't have said it quite that way, but I'm glad
he does, and his exposition of the facts certainly
seems to support his charge.

Gelbspan also criticizes the current administration,
documenting its efforts to "demolish the diplomatic
foundations" of the international agreement known as
the Kyoto Protocol, and describing its approach to
energy and environmental policy as "corruption
disguised as conservatism." Again, he backs up his
charge with impressive research. Moreover, his
critique is far from partisan. He takes on
environmental groups for doing way too little and for
focusing on their own institutional agendas rather
than the central challenges.

When Gelbspan addresses the subject of solutions, he
first gives a detailed analysis of all the significant
plans that have been offered, and then endorses a
maximalist approach called the World Energy
Modernization Plan, developed six years ago by an ad
hoc group that met at the Harvard Medical School. His
basic argument is that it is far too late in the game
to waste time on strategies that might be more
politically feasible but don't actually do enough to
begin to solve the problem.

He may be right, but the plan's authors, though
distinguished, remind me of Sam Rayburn's remark that
he'd feel a lot better "if just one of them had ever
run for sheriff."

THE fact is, many who have worked on this problem
believe it may be essential to begin with a binding
agreement among nations and then, after governments
and industries shift direction, toughen the goals.
That is the formula used successfully in the Montreal
Protocol in 1987 to begin reducing the emissions that
cause destruction of stratospheric ozone. Three years
later, the standards were dramatically tightened in
the London Amendments, and by then most resistance had
dissipated.

The Kyoto Protocol (which may soon become legally
effective if Russia ratifies it, even though the
United States has not) has been criticized by many,
including Gelbspan, for not going nearly far enough to
reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But it
has simultaneously been condemned from the opposite
side for going too far. If Kyoto does take effect, we
may find that after industries and countries begin to
comply, it will be easier to expand the limits of what
is politically possible.

But Gelbspan's point is a powerful one and is well
argued. And he has, in any case, performed a great
service by writing an informative book on a difficult
but crucial subject.

--------

Al Gore, formerly vice president of the United
States, is the author of "Earth in the Balance:
Ecology and the Human Spirit."

C.I.A. Officer Denounces Agency and Sept. 11 Report

The name of Michael F. Scheuer, aka Anonymous, is, of
course, already scrawled on the John P. O'Neill Wal of
Heroes...Litchblau's story, though, is typically
NYTwit, referrring to the "largely glowing reaction"
to the 9/11 Commission Report, without referring to
Sibel Edmonds in particular, and writing that an
"intelligence official said that the C.I.A. quadrupled
the number of counterterrorism analysts and doubled
the number of counterterrorism officers in the year
after the Sept. 11 attacks<' without noting or at
least wondering aloud how many of them were assigned
to Iraq and Saddam instead of Al Qaeda and Osama. As
usual, no CONTEXT, no CONTINUITY.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/politics/17intel.html

C.I.A. Officer Denounces Agency and Sept. 11 Report
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 17, 2004

ASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A senior officer for the Central
Intelligence Agency who led the unit that tracked
Osama bin Laden has written a blistering letter to the
Sept. 11 commission, attacking both the C.I.A. and the
commission itself over what he sees as a failure to
punish "bureaucratic cowards" in the intelligence
agencies.

The officer, Michael F. Scheuer, has written a
best-selling book under the pseudonym "Anonymous" that
is sharply critical of the way the United States has
pursued its global campaign against terrorism.

In a signed e-mail letter sent to the commission, he
lashed out in angry and highly personal tones at the
failure by the commission and the C.I.A. to hold
anyone directly accountable for Sept. 11 failures and
aimed sharp criticism at George J. Tenet, the former
director of central intelligence, without mentioning
his name.

In the Sept. 11 commission's final report, "you never
mention that the D.C.I. starved and is starving the
bin Laden unit of officers while finding plenty of
officers to staff his personal public relations
office, as well as the staffs that handled diversity,
multiculturalism, and employee newsletters," he wrote
in a letter that was sent July 31.

He also said that the United States gave short shrift
to protecting American lives before the Sept. 11
attacks so that it could pursue the sale of fighter
jets to an unnamed Arab government, which other
officials identified as the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Scheuer's e-mail, a copy of which was made
available to The New York Times, was a dissenting note
in what has otherwise been largely glowing reaction to
the Sept. 11 commission's final report last month,
which has set off broad debate about how best to
restructure the intelligence community. His letter,
which says restructuring is not the answer, is also
extraordinary in that it comes from a current senior
case officer at the C.I.A., where internal
whistle-blowers are rare. From 1996 to 1999, he led
the C.I.A. unit that tracked Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan and he continues to serve in a senior
counterterrorism post.

While some intelligence officials took issue with Mr.
Scheuer's version of events, the C.I.A. and the Sept.
11 commission declined to respond to his specific
accusations.

"A lot of people call and e-mail us with their
thoughts," said Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept.
11 commission. "Some people criticize us, some people
praise us and we don't respond. The report is out
there for the American people to judge. "

In recent weeks, Mr. Scheuer has given numerous
anonymous interviews promoting his book, "Imperial
Hubris," including some television appearances in
which his face was not shown. But the C.I.A. has now
ordered him to curtail his public commentary sharply,
and to get advance approval for future statements. A
publicist for Mr. Scheuer's book said Monday that he
could not comment on the letter to the commission
because of the C.I.A.'s new restrictions.

While some Web sites and media outlets have disclosed
Mr. Scheuer's identity before, The Times has
previously referred to him only as "Mike" at the
request of an intelligence official because of
concerns about his safety. Now that he has signed his
name in his letter to the Sept. 11 commission and the
C.I.A. has sought to curb his public comments, the
newspaper is using his name.

Some government officials, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said Monday that they regarded Mr.
Scheuer's latest accusations as exaggerated or
unfounded.

On the question of whether Mr. Tenet put public
relations staffing ahead of combating terrorism, for
instance, an intelligence official said that the
C.I.A. quadrupled the number of counterterrorism
analysts and doubled the number of counterterrorism
officers in the year after the Sept. 11 attacks and
that these numbers have risen further since then.

A second intelligence official noted that Mr. Scheuer
had testified privately at length before the Sept. 11
commission. "If they didn't buy what he had to say,
that ought to tell you something," the official said.

The Washington Post still doesn’t get it.

Yes, it's STILL the Media, Stupid.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nypress.com/17/33/news&columns/MATTTAIBBI.cfm

SORRY, OUR BAD
The Washington Post still doesn’t get it.

By Matt Taibbi

WITH ALL DUE respect to the Washington Post's Howard
Kurtz, who was polite to me when we spoke on the phone
earlier this year, I had to laugh at his 3000-word "We
Fucked Up on Iraq" piece that came out last week.

Kurtz's Aug. 12 piece, entitled "The Post on WMDs: An
Inside Story; Prewar Articles Questioning Threat Often
Didn't Make Front Page," was the latest in what is
likely to be a long series of tepid media mea culpas
about pre-war Iraq reporting. The piece comes on the
heels of the New York Times' infamous "The Bitch Set
Us Up" piece from this past May, in which that paper
implicitly blamed hyperambitious hormone-case Judith
Miller for its hilarious prewar failures.

The Kurtz article was a curious piece of writing. In
reading it, I was reminded of a scene I once witnessed
at the New England Aquarium in Boston, in the
aqua-petting-zoo section on the second floor.

The petting pool contained a sea cucumber. Now, anyone
who has ever made it through seventh-grade science
class knows what a sea cucumber does when threatened.
Unfortunately, some parent unleashed a sixth-grader on
the pool unattended. The kid started fucking with the
sea cucumber, poking and prodding it like crazy. So
the sea cucumber pulled out its only defense
mechanism, turning itself inside out and showing its
nasty guts to the poor kid, who immediately thought
he'd killed the thing and ran away crying. Later, when
I made another turn through the same area of the
aquarium, the cucumber had reconstituted itself and
was sitting in its usual log-like position.

It is hard to imagine a better metaphor for these
post-invasion auto-crucifixions our papers of record
have been giving us lately.

The Post piece featured an array of senior and
less-senior reporters who let us in on the shocking
revelation that stories questioning the Bush
administration's pre-war intelligence claims were
often buried deep in the news section, while Bush
claims ran on the front. Revelations included the
heartwarming Thelma & Louise tale of Walter Pincus and
Bob Woodward teaming up to get Pincus' WMD skepticism
piece into the paper just days before the country went
over the cliff into Iraq. In fact, the second
paragraph of the piece is devoted to this tale of
editorial foxhole heroism:

…his piece ran only after assistant managing editor
Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the
drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus
recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time
getting into the paper." Even so, the article was
relegated to Page A17.

Quite a lot of Kurtz's article is devoted to such
backdoor compliments, with numerous reminders
throughout the text that the Post, relatively
speaking, did a better job than most papers on Iraq.
Much of the piece was framed in this "But on the other
hand…" rhetorical format, in which admissions of poor
performance surfed home on waves of somber
self-congratulation. Some examples:

The Post published a number of pieces challenging the
White House, but rarely on the front page.

The result was coverage that, despite flashes of
groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks
strikingly one-sided at times.

Quoting media critic Michael Massing: "'In covering
the run-up to the war, The Post did better than most
other news organizations…' But on the key issue of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the paper was
generally napping along with everyone else."

Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the
Nixon administration… the paper's shortcomings did not
reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush White
House.

Liz Spayd, the assistant managing editor for national
news, says The Post's overall record was strong. "I
believe we pushed as hard or harder than anyone to
question the administration's assertions on all kinds
of subjects related to the war..."

Bob Woodward: "We did our job but we didn't do
enough."

When the Post wasn't reassuring readers of its
competence, it was offering excuses—lots of them. The
list is really an extraordinary one. According to
Kurtz's interview subjects, the Post was slow on Iraq
because: a) Walter Pincus is a "cryptic" writer who
isn't "storifyable"; b) there is limited space on the
front page, and executive editor Leonard Downie Jr.
likes to have health and education and Orioles
coverage and other stuff there; c) the paper got a lot
of depressing hate mail questioning its patriotism
whenever it questioned the Bush administration; d)
their intelligence sources wouldn't go on the record,
while Bush and Powell were up there openly saying all
this stuff; e) the paper had to rely on the
administration because Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus
had no "alternative sources of information," and
particularly couldn't go to Iraq "without getting
killed"; f) the paper, including Woodward, was duped
by highly seductive intelligence-community
"groupthink"; g) too many of the dissenting sources
were retired from government or, even worse, not in
government at all; h) stories on intelligence are
"difficult to edit"; g) there was "a lot of
information to digest"; h) the paper is "inevitably a
mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power";
i) a flood of copy about the impending invasion kept
skeptical coverage out [Note: This is my favorite.
We're already covering the war, so it's too late to
explain why we shouldn't go to war.]; and finally, j)
none of it matters, because even if the Post had done
a more thorough job, there would have been a war
anyway.

Here's how Downie put that last excuse:

People who were opposed to the war from the beginning
and have been critical of the media's coverage…have
the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's
coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been
a war.

Nothing like an editor with a firm grasp of
metaphysics. "It doesn't matter what we write, the
universe is still going to keep expanding…"

The problem with these newsprint confessions is not
that they are craven, insufficient and self-serving,
which of course they are. The problem is that, on the
whole, they do not correct the pre-war mistakes, but
actually further them. The Post would have you believe
that its "failure" before the war was its
inability/reluctance to punch holes in Bush's WMD
claims.

Right. I marched in Washington against the war in
February 2003 with about 400,000 people, and I can
pretty much guarantee that not more than a handful of
those people gave a shit about whether or not Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
because we knew what the Post and all of these other
papers still refuse to admit—this whole thing was
never about weapons of mass destruction. Even a five-
year-old, much less the literate executive editor of
the Washington Post, could have seen, from watching
Bush and his cronies make his war case, that they were
going in anyway.

For God's sake, Bush was up there in the fall of 2002,
warning us that unmanned Iraqi drones were going to
spray poison gas on the continental United States. The
whole thing—the "threat" of Iraqi attack, the link to
terrorism, the dire warnings about Saddam's
intentions—it was all bullshit on its face, as stupid,
irrelevant and transparent as a cheating husband's
excuse. And I don't know a single educated person who
didn't think so at the time.

The story shouldn't have been, "Are there WMDs?" The
story should have been, "Why are they pulling this
stunt? And why now?" That was the real mystery. It
still is.

We didn't need a named source in the Pentagon to tell
us that. And neither did the Washington Post. o

Volume 17, Issue 33
©2004 All rights reserved.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any
manner without written permission of the publisher.

Pearl Family: Keep Daniel's Name Out of Politics

The botched, bungled, mis-named "war on terrorism" is
not the strength of the Bush abomination, it is the
SHAME of the Bush abomination.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000613369

Pearl Family: Keep Daniel's Name Out of Politics

By E&P Staff

Published: August 17, 2004

NEW YORK Responding to a statement by Vice President
Dick Cheney last Thursday, the family of Wall Street
Journal reporter Daniel Pearl has asked that his name
not be used in any political context in this year's
election campaign.

Mocking Sen. John Kerry's pledge to fight a "more
sensitive" war on terror, Cheney had said, "The men
who beheaded Daniel Pearl will not be impressed by our
sensitivity."

Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded in Pakistan two years
ago.

Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, 67, said the request was
meant to reduce the chances of inflaming hatred.

"We don't take sides between Bush and Kerry," he told
The New York Times. "I don't even know who I'm going
to vote for."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff

"STEPFORD! No other word can describe the work of your post-human press corps this weekend..."

It's the Media, Stupid.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081604.shtml

STEPFORD! No other word can describe the work of your post-human press corps this weekend: MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004

STEPFORD: Stepford!! No other word can describe the
work of your post-human “press corps” this weekend.
The scribes provided a range of examples. Just try to
believe that they did it:
PART ONE—FOREVER IN BLUE JEANS: In this morning’s
Washington Post, John Harris gushes over George Bush’s
style on the stump. And he stresses the candidate’s
casual clothing. Headline: “Shirtsleeves Style Is a
Strong Suit for Bush.” Indeed, Harris just loves
Bush’s clothes:

HARRIS (pgh 1): President Bush has formidable
obstacles to reelection, but he served a reminder last
week that he is a politician with formidable
strengths.
(2) Anyone who doubts it should spend some time
watching the shirtsleeves campaign. In five days of
energetic campaigning through five swing states, Bush
looked and sounded like someone dropping by a
neighbor's lawn party—no coat, no tie, rolled-up
sleeves, and conversational speeches in which he
implored voters to "put a man in there who can get the
job done."

(3) In loosening his style, Bush tightened his
message. Fielding friendly questions at “Ask President
Bush” forums, or lathering up the crowds at pep
rallies like the one here on Saturday afternoon, he
presented his case for reelection with a force and
fluency that sometimes eluded him at important moments
over the past year.

A Post photo also stresses Bush’s clothing. “A
casually dressed President Bush holds a baby at the
end of a campaign rally in Sioux City,” the caption
says.
Why is this piece by Harris so striking? Because of
the way his cohort treated this non-topic four years
ago. In Campaign 2000, Candidate Gore appeared in
casual clothing right from the start, in March 1999,
when he spent his first weekend out on the trail. And
early profiles of Gore’s campaigning sounded much like
Harris’ piece. Gore had “[l]ost the suit and tie to
demonstrate that he can connect with voters,” Susan
Page wrote in USA Today in May 1999. Other scribes
noted Gore’s casual clothes, and explained his
wardrobe is much the same way. It’s true, the subject
was barely worth mentioning. But, early on in Campaign
2000, everyone knew why Candidate Gore was appearing
in shirtsleeves, not suits.

Yes, Gore was campaigning in casual clothes, just as
Bush is doing now. But in Campaign 2000, the press
corps conducted a War Against Gore, and soon they
started attacking Gore’s clothes as a symbol of, yes,
his unsuitability. In the fall of 1999, Ceci
Connolly—right at Harris’ paper—made up a phony tale
about Gore. Gore had recently “ditched his suits,” she
falsely said, because Bill Bradley was gaining in the
Dem Party polls. This explanation was patently bogus,
as Connolly and others clearly knew, but every
reporter knew to repeat it. Soon, Brian Williams was
worrying hard, night after night, about Gore’s deeply
troubling wardrobe. Gore was “wearing polo shirts
twenty-four hours a day,” he complained on his 10/6/99
MSNBC program. The polo shirts “don’t always look
natural on him,” he grumbled again two nights later.
Williams pretended that Gore was wearing the shirts in
some sort of effort to fool female voters; he
repeatedly asked his guests when Gore’s clever
strategy would “all start becoming so transparent
[that] no one is fooled” (October 6) or (October 8)
whether the strategy would “become absolutely
transparent when they go out into the hinterlands and
try to sell it?” Incredibly, Williams raised the
question of Gore’s polo shirts five separate nights in
one eight-day period, from October 4 through October
11. A few weeks, the press corps (once again prompted
by Connolly) created a major flap about Gore’s
troubling use of “earth-toned” clothing. The clowning
was endless, disturbed, universal. But today, Harris
notes Bush in casual clothes—and praises him for his
brilliant good judgment. When Gore did it, he was a
fake. When Bush does it, he’s a great candidate.

Harris, of course, pretends to forget what happened to
Gore four years ago. But then, Harris, like the rest
of his Android Chorale, is programmed to hide his
group’s recent history. Other colleagues simply lied
when they trashed Gore for his casual clothing (links
below). We’ve told this story many times. But Harris
is programmed to forget it.

No, there’s nothing wrong with Bush’s clothing. But
something was wrong four years ago when the press
trashed Gore for wearing such clothes. But you won’t
recall that in this morning’s report. Stepford
then—and Stepford now! Harris is wired to “forget.”

PART TWO—TROUBLING JOKES: If you want to think your
“press corps” is human, you have to account for Jodi
Wilgoren. Most recently, you have to deal with
Sunday’s report in the great New York Times. Wilgoren
spent an entire report puzzling about a remarkable
fact—Kerry tells different jokes in different
locations! Only an android could find this surprising.
But it’s Big News in the Times:

WILGOREN: Asked aboard his campaign plane Thursday
night where he gets this material, Mr. Kerry hurried
back to his cabin without answering.
But then, what normal human wouldn’t run from someone
asking such oddball questions? Finally, a Kerry aide
is forced to answer. He pretends that it all makes
good sense.
Yes, aides have to put their suspicions aside. But for
those who claim Wilgoren is human, one part of her
kooky report will surely be hard to explain:

WILGOREN: The local crowds generally eat it up, their
laughter and applause drowning out the collective
groan from the traveling press corps.
Oops! Normally, reporters describe their colleagues
groaning in pain when they hear the same speeches
night after night. With her wiring somehow crossed,
Wilgoren says the tribe now groans when they hear
different jokes.
May we offer an explanation? Wilgoren, like the rest
of her group, is programmed to look for “flip-flops”
from Kerry. When the hopeful changed his jokes,
inadequate programming led her to pen this plainly
post-human report.

PART THREE—WEIRDLY INSENSITIVE: When Chris Wallace
asked the first time, Richard Lugar tried to duck.
Lugar was guesting on Fox News Sunday. Note how the
solon tried to avoid his host’s query:

WALLACE (8/15/04): Senator, I want to switch subjects
with you, and I want to play a couple of clips from
the campaign trail in recent days. Take a look:
KERRY (videotape): I believe I can fight a more
effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations.

DICK CHENEY (videotape): America has been in too many
wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was
won by being sensitive.

WALLACE: Senator, in the context in which Senator
Kerry was speaking, “being sensitive to reach out to
other countries”—anything wrong with fighting a
sensitive war on terror?

Wallace was begging Lugar to state the obvious—this is
a ludicrous, fake, phony issue. And Lugar, a
Republican, is known for good sense. Sensibly, he
attempted to duck:
LUGAR (continuing directly): Well, we should reach out
to other countries. And we're doing that in North
Korea, obviously, with the six-power talks and with
all of the talks that are involved in Iran—and, for
that matter, with Iraq. We are eager for anyone to
come in and to help us; encouraging people to do that.
So there's no difference really in the reaching-out
process here. I think I would just say Senator Kerry
is really moving against a false target. The
reaching-out process is really profound.

Knowing how stupid this whole topic is, Lugar, a
moderate, tried to avoid it. Indeed, he seemed to say
that we’re already being sensitive. But Wallace saw
that Lugar had basically ducked. So he asked again—and
Lugar relented:
WALLACE (continuing directly): But when he says, “I
want to fight a thoughtful, effective, sensitive war
on terror,” is there anything wrong with sensitive?
Because the Republicans have been making fun of him
for saying that.
LUGAR: Well, I think the word “sensitive” has become a
campaign issue itself. And you saw, as I did, the two
clips that were brought at the fore. It is not an
appropriate word, given, I suspect, the dangers that
are involved.

Principally we've been talking about Iraq. There's
nothing sensitive about the situation there for the
moment. This is a tough business as to who is going to
prevail and what kind of winds of political change
could make possible a democracy in a tough situation.

It is not an appropriate word! It was sad to see Lugar
stoop, pretending this was a serious issue.
But Lugar, of course, is a GOP pol. Major TV pundits
are not. But so what? It was almost impossible, over
the weekend, to find a pundit willing to say that this
whole foolish flap was a big, screaming joke. On a
Sunday night Hardball, Chris Matthews continued to
trash Bush and Cheney for promoting this fake, stupid
issue. But strings of pundits on weekend shows
struggled and strained to gloss over the question. No
one seemed to think this was phony! Indeed, on Meet
the Press, guest host Andrea Mitchell offered some
comic relief. When John Harwood pretended the
“sensitive” matter was serious, she offered this comic
reaction:

MITCHELL: Of course, George Bush has also used the
word "sensitive," but that gets kind of glossed over.
Anne Kornblut, you've been out with the Kerry
campaign. You've watched him in action. Why is he
having such a hard time explaining his vote on Iraq?
Saying that Bush’s use of the word gets “glossed
over,” Mitchell glossed over the issue itself! No tape
was played of Bush and Cheney saying the things for
which they trashed Kerry. Instead, Mitchell quickly
threw to Kornblut, who gave a skillful non-answer
answer about the whole “sensitive” foofaw:
KORNBLUT: I would say on the question of the word
“sensitive,” it's not a debate that's over yet. We had
John Edwards come out a couple days ago and defend
John Kerry. It's part of the sort of rhetorical
back-and-forth that they're having. George Bush was
using the phrase "turn the corner" for a while, and
Kerry fought him on that. And so each of them is sort
of parrying and sparring over specific words that they
then drop and abandon.
Thanks for saying nothing at all! But on to Roger
Simon we went. Sadly, Simon was eager to tell a
“French” joke—and to describe the Stepford Logic that
rules your android press corps:
MITCHELL (continuing directly): Roger, I see you
nodding.
SIMON: "Sensitive" is the kind of word a French
candidate for president would use. [Laughter] It's not
a word that Kerry needed. He went one adjective too
far in responding to that question. George Bush has,
indeed, used the same word in approximately the same
context, but no one has ever accused George Bush of
being overly sensitive about anything. John Kerry has
been accused of being overly sensitive and overly
nuanced.

Could any human follow such logic? Bush has used the
same word in the same context, Simon says. But it’s OK
for Bush, and not for Kerry, based on what people have
previously charged. The merits of this don’t make any
difference. It’s all about what folks have said.
If the Washington press corps was actually human,
don’t you think that someone would take offense at the
nonsense these pundits described? If the press was
actually human, wouldn’t someone say something like
this—perhaps with a hint of real feeling?

WHAT SOME HUMAN WOULD SURELY SAY: But Bush and Cheney
have said very similar things! This is a totally fake,
phony issue. Out on the trail, Cheney is acting like
Kerry was recommending “sensitivity” toward
terrorists. Obviously, that isn’t what Kerry was
saying, and Cheney knows it. Cheney is totally faking
on this. [To panel] I’m amazed you don’t come out and
say so.
If your pundits were actually human, wouldn’t someone
say something like this? But if you watched their
recitals this weekend, you didn’t see that statement
made. For the record, the androids on Washington Week
were the worst. But we didn’t tape their performance,
and the show hasn’t posted it yet.
PART FOUR—WHAT THEM WORRY: How do you know your
pundits aren’t human? On Saturday, Nicholas Kristof
published Part 2 of his ongoing Times report (see THE
DAILY HOWLER, 8/11/04). His headline read, “The
Nuclear Shadow.” Here’s the way he started:

KRISTOF: If a 10-kiloton terrorist nuclear weapon
explodes beside the New York Stock Exchange or the
U.S. Capitol, or in Times Square, as many nuclear
experts believe is likely in the next decade, then the
next 9/11 commission will write a devastating critique
of how we allowed that to happen.
As I wrote in my last column, there is a general
conviction among many experts—though, in fairness, not
all—that nuclear terrorism has a better-than-even
chance of occurring in the next 10 years. Such an
attack could kill 500,000 people.

Yet U.S. politicians have utterly failed to face up to
the danger.

Experts predict a domestic nuclear attack in the next
decade. Kristof reported this two times this week. If
your pundits were actually human, wouldn’t
someone—somebody, somewhere—have reacted this weekend
to that? But your pundits aren’t programmed to talk
about that. They talked about clothing, fake claims,
stupid jokes. Substance “kind of gets glossed over,”
Mitchell said. Someone should tighten her wiring.
GLOSSING HARD: Harris keeps glossing a Standard Bush
Charge. For about the ten millionth time, he penned an
Official Preferred Recitation. He had lots of space to
discuss it:

HARRIS: [T]his background serves mostly as preface to
an attack on Kerry. At each stop last week, Bush
regaled his audiences by noting that the Democrat
voted for the Iraq war resolution and then "declared
himself the antiwar candidate" in last winter's
primaries, and now, having "found a new nuance," has
said he still "agrees it was the right decision to go
into Iraq."
"And I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that
up," Bush chortled. "Although I caution you, there are
still 80 days left where he could change his mind
again."

He continues by noting that everyone in Congress voted
for his $87 billion appropriations request on Iraq
except for a "small what I would call
out-of-the-mainstream minority of 12" Democrats, "and
two of those 12 are my opponent and his running mate."

"You might remember his initial explanation," Bush
told partisans at the Iowa event. "He said, 'I
actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted
against it.' That doesn't sound like the way people in
Sioux land talk. The pressure got on a little bit
about that vote. Then he said, well, he's proud of the
vote. And he went on to say, the whole thing is a
complicated matter."

Then came what is becoming one of the standard
applause lines in Bush's stump speech: "There's
nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat."

Harris wrote over a thousand words in all. He had
plenty of time to describe Bush’s clothes—and five
grafs to lavish on this Standard Story. But why
wouldn’t a human who had words to waste give readers a
few basic facts?
WHAT HARRIS COULD HAVE WRITTEN: "You might remember
his initial explanation," Bush told partisans at the
Iowa event. "He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87
billion before I voted against it.' That doesn't sound
like the way people in Sioux land talk. The pressure
got on a little bit about that vote. Then he said,
well, he's proud of the vote. And he went on to say,
the whole thing is a complicated matter."
Then came what is becoming one of the standard
applause lines in Bush's stump speech: "There's
nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat." Of course, though Bush says this matter
wasn’t complicated, he himself threatened to veto the
$87 billion six days after Kerry’s “no” vote. Bush was
concerned that the bill might include loans to Iraq,
not outright grants.

Omigod! Harris could even ask the Bush camp a
question. He could ask why Bush keeps saying “nothing
complicated” when he himself said he would veto the
bill! But functioning androids don’t do things like
that. They just type Approved Press Corps Stories.
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: The press corps
trashed Gore’s clothes for two years. The extent of
this story is hard to believe. See THE DAILY HOWLER,
3/4/03, with links to prior reporting.

STARTING TOMORROW: Don’t read Clinton’s book, the
Times said. In four parts, we help you know why.

ALSO: The Androids have agreed on some pro-Kerry
stories. More on those topics this week.

William Rivers Pitt: Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today, George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the first 16 days of August...thirty more people who would not now be dead but for your decisions and your actions and your appalling

The Emperor has no uniform...

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704A.shtml

Brain Dead, Made of Money, No Future at All
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 17 August 2004

To: George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear George:

A pretty awful joke has been making the rounds
lately. Some might say it's an awful joke because of
the comparison. Most, however, think it's an awful
joke because it isn't funny. It's too close to the
truth to be funny.

The joke: What is the difference between President
George W. Bush and President Ted Bundy?

The answer: Bush killed more people than Bundy.

See? I told you it was a terrible joke. On the one
hand, it is in poor taste by commonly accepted
standards to compare a sitting President to a
notorious serial killer. On the other hand, though,
the 943 dead American soldiers in Iraq, the more than
ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians, the more than five
thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan, and let's not
forget the large crowd of Americans you toddled off to
the Texas killing bottle while Governor, pretty much
means you have left Mr. Bundy in the deep shade when
it comes to the body count.

There is, of course, the nearly 3,000 dead Americans
from September 11th. The 9/11 Commission broke out
some buckets of whitewash, and like a group of dutiful
Tom Sawyers, painted over the grim realities of that
day. It couldn't be stopped, they said in their
report. People like Richard Clarke, Sibel Edmonds and
the families of the lost who know more about the
events of that day than anyone on the planet,
disagree.

"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to
the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going
to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, a 9/11 widow who has become a leader in the
truth movement. The thing is, Mindy, Mr. Rumsfeld was
probably fine-tuning the Iraq invasion plan he'd been
working on for years. He is, after all, a
professional.

Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today,
George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the
first 16 days of August. That's thirty more names to
be added to the commemorative wall which will appear
somewhere in Washington DC someday. Thirty more
etchings in ebon stone, thirty more people who would
not now be dead but for your decisions and your
actions and your appalling dishonesty.

I'm pretty bored with those commonly accepted
standards that are supposed to be applied in the
treatment of a sitting President. Too many people have
been playing patty-cake with you over the last three
years, George. Too many journalists looking to keep
their sweet seat in the press crunch at the White
House, too many television news anchors who think
research and context is for other people, too many
media outlet owners - read: 'massive corporations' -
whose profit margins are intimately wed to your
suicidal policies, and, frankly, too many politicians
for the 'loyal opposition' who have been tested in the
forge of true crisis these last years, and been found
to be sorely wanting.

So let's not have any patty-cake between us, George.
Let's get down to brass tacks. Your people compared
Senator Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein during the 2002 midterm campaign. Cleland left
two legs and an arm in Vietnam, but your people did
that to him anyway. A little hard talk, East Texas
style, shouldn't be anything new to you.

A wiser man once wrote this:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an
invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may
choose to say he deems it necessary for such a
purpose, and you allow him to make war at
pleasure...if, today, he should choose to say he
thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the
British from invading us, how could you stop him? You
may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British
invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I can
see it, if you don't.'"

The wiser man who wrote these words was Abraham
Lincoln, in a letter to his law partner Billy Hendron.
Lincoln wrote this letter in 1848 while serving in the
House of Representatives, years before he himself
would assume the office of the Presidency. Lincoln
became, in the fullness of time, a war President who
unwillingly inherited his war, and then pursued it
with grim determination.

He summoned Generals like Ulysses Grant, whose
essential demeanor, in the words of Civil War
historian Bruce Catton, "was that of a man who had
made up his mind to drive his head through a stone
wall." From March of 1864 to April of 1865, Grant used
the mighty Army of the Potomac as Lincoln's merciless
fist, until the white flags were raised over bloodied
ground at Appomattox.

Lincoln was a war President who won his war, though
the fighting of it was not his choice. He fought the
enemies arrayed before him, and did not invent enemies
out of whole cloth. Imagine Lincoln, faced with the
Confederate insurrection, deciding to undertake an
invasion of Greenland. He would have been laughed out
of the White House. That's basically what you've done
in Iraq.

You fancy yourself a war President, right? "I'm a
war President," you said on television not long ago.
"I make decisions in the Oval Office with war on my
mind." Your war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of
necessity. It had nothing to do with September 11,
weapons of mass destruction, or bringing democracy to
the Iraqi people. It had nothing to do with defending
the American people.

Your boys wanted to get paid. Cash money on the
barrelhead for Halliburton, right? Almost twelve
billion dollars they've made to this point. Hey, it's
good work if you can get it. All you had to do was use
September 11th against your own people for months,
scare them to death, denigrate the work of the weapons
inspectors you agreed to send in there, flap around
some claims about weapons of mass destruction (26,000
liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin,
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, per your own
words from your 2003 State of the Union Address), and
then fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare victory
while your people were still dying.

As if that wasn't bad enough, you're also losing
your war of choice.

Hard to believe, isn't it? Your daddy rolled up Iraq
like a windowshade when it was his turn at the big
wheel. Your daddy made it look easy, which is perhaps
why you thought you could take care of business over
there on the cheap. Do you have trouble looking daddy
in the eyes these days?

Right now, the soldiers you sent into harm's way are
fighting a running battle in the holy city of Najaf,
which is home to the Shrine to Ali. Ali, in case you
didn't know, is considered to be the legitimate heir
to Mohammed himself by followers of the Shi'ite faith.
Shi'ites all around the world - millions of them in
places like Iran and India and right here in America -
are reacting to this action in the same way Catholic
parishioners in Boston would react if someone rolled
tanks on the Vatican. If you so much as chip the paint
on that shrine, you're going to unite yet another
group of people in explosive rage against the United
States.

The gap between you and Abraham Lincoln is so wide,
George, that it cannot be measured by any scientific
instruments currently known to modern science. Abe had
you pegged, though, 156 years ago. You were allowed to
make war at your pleasure, and the world entire is
desperately wondering how you can be stopped.

You might have heard, George, about a fellow named
Hugo Chavez winning the referendum on his Presidency
in Venezuela. Millions of poor people flooded out of
the hills to cast their votes for him, because he uses
his nation's oil revenues to pay for their food and
education. Quite a novel idea, yes? How many schools
could we have built - schools like citadels - with the
twelve billion dollars you have thrown at Halliburton?
How many hungry people in your own country could have
been fed? How many jobs programs could have been
funded? How many catastrophically polluted Superfund
sites could have been cleaned?

That apparently wasn't on your program, George. You
have eviscerated OSHA regulations - those pesky things
that keep workers from getting injured and killed on
the job - because you want to appear
'business-friendly.' The $1.5 million you got from the
chemical industry in campaign funding compelled you to
lower the safety standards for chemicals used in the
production of superconductors, chemicals that are
believed to cause miscarriages in pregnant workers.
You eliminated overtime pay for six million workers,
going so far as to have tips for employers posted on
your administration's Labor Department website which
will help them screw employees out of the wages they
earn. You have obliterated environmental protections
across the board.

The list goes on. For a man who fashions his
political persona as a "regular fella," you have
delivered a large screwing to the real regular fellas
who are going to have to plow through the wreckage
you've left in your wake.

I worry about you, George. You live in a stark
black-and-white world, and you actually think God
speaks to you. There are a lot of people in padded
rooms, wearing coats that button up the back, because
they have had similar delusions. You see monsters
everywhere. Some of them do exist, to be sure, but I
am forced to remember the words of Frederich
Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it
that in the process he does not become a monster. And
when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks
into you."

You have become a monster, George, and the abyss is
staring into your eyes. I wonder what it sees there. I
know what I see.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and
international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq:
What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The
Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

Agence France Press: Never a hostile question for campaigning Bush

At least three more US Marines died in Iraq this
weekend. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three
Stooges Reich? Yes, certainly. Anything else? If you
recall, in the weeks and months immediately after the
Supreme Injustice decision in Bush vs. Gore, we
referred to *him* as the _resident, and as the devastation
that his economic misdeeds and national security
blunders have visited on this country became so
painfully evident that it even seeped through into the
"US mainstream news media," and his facade started to
crumble, we began to refer to him as the incredibly
shrinking _resident, and then, as the disintegration
of his political base started to take a psychological
toll on him and his own smirking demeanour became
disturbed, we began to refer to him as the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident...Here is an extraordinary story from Agence
France Press...How embarrassing...not just for the
man, or for his political party but, more importantly,
for the Republic that he has so deeply wronged...Read
this story, please, and and share it with your friends
and colleagues...and ask yourselves: Is this the
America that those three young US Marines (and almost
one thousand other men and women of the US military)
died for? Is this man fit to be their
commander-in-chief?

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040815/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_bush_ask&cid=1506&ncid=2043

Never a hostile question for campaigning Bush

Sun Aug 15, 6:56 PM ET

SIOUX CITY, United States (AFP) - President George W.
Bush (news - web sites) famously dislikes press
conferences but has embraced "Ask President Bush (news
- web sites)" sessions packed with supporters at least
as eager to pay tribute to him as get an answer.

"Mr President, I don't have a question. I've got three
'thank-yous'," one man told him at such an event in
Ohio.

Billed as informal question-and-answer opportunities
for curious voters to quiz the most powerful man in
the world, the carefully choreographed campaign events
usually recycle the central points from his stump
speech.

"We're going to call on some of your citizens to help
me make some points," he said at the Ohio event.

Bush's well-honed address includes a vow to appoint
conservative judges, a defense of his tax cuts as
promoting growth, and an emotional argument that going
to war with Iraq (news - web sites) was the right
decision.

At an "Ask President Bush" in Oregon Friday, he was
asked to appoint conservative judges; heard that his
tax cuts promote growth; and received an emotional
tribute from the sister-in-law of an Iraq-bound US
soldier.

While he has yet to face a hostile questioner, angry
attacks on Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry
(news - web sites) abound.

In Beaverton, Bush supporters accused the
Massachusetts senator of having a "fuzzy memory," of
winning two of his five Vietnam war medals for
"self-inflicted scratches."

But would-be Bush hecklers face daunting obstacles:
Loyalists handle giving out tickets to the event;
home-made signs and banners are often forbidden; and
in some cases access hinges on signing a loyalty oath.

"First priority goes to volunteers and supporters and
then we reach out to people who are undecided and want
to hear what the president has to say," according Bush
campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The result is a friendly crowd eager to see the
candidate they hope will win the November 2 election,
while authorities banish protesters to heavily policed
sidewalks blocks away.

In fact, the only question that left Bush briefly at a
loss for words in Oregon came from a child who stumped
him by asking why a school superintendent who "makes
200,000 dollars" would fire the school librarian.

"I can't answer your question why. But (First Lady)
Laura (Bush) was a librarian, so maybe the
superintendent ought to talk to the librarian, Laura.
But, no, I don't know," the president said.

Another child, however, had a more campaign-friendly
question -- "Mr president, as a child how can I help
you get votes?" -- and received a more confident
answer.

"First, you can put signs up in people's yards who
want the signs in their yards," said Bush, who urged
the tot to find a friend with a sibling over the
minimum voting age of 18.

"Say to them, register to vote, and then please do me
a favor, vote on my behalf for George W. Bush," said
the president, who won laughter from his hand-picked
audience.

Suppress the Vote?

At least three more US Marines died in Iraq over the weekend. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich, yes, but anything else? Did they die for the America that this story points to? Was this kind of voter intimidation what they sacrificed their lives to protect? Here is an ugly glimpse into the greatest threat to your way of life, a greater threat than Al Qaeda, a greater threat job loss or the Federal deficit or even the Mega-Mogadishu in Iraq...Here is a painful, vivid example of why so many of us REFUSED to "get over it" in the wake of Fraudida 2000 debacle...Either commit
your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honors to an
Electoral Uprising in November 2004 or lose this
Republic, because just as surely as the sun rose this
morning, it is being cooked slowly like a frog in a
pot on a slow slimmer...so that the victim ("We, the
People...") will not know until it is too late...

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16herbert.html?hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Suppress the Vote?
By BOB HERBERT

he big story out of Florida over the weekend was the
tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But
there's another story from Florida that deserves our
attention.

State police officers have gone into the homes of
elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them
as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened
many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown
a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in
November.

The officers, from the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they
are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came
up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.

Officials refused to discuss details of the
investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots
are involved. They said they had no idea when the
investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may
continue right through the presidential election.

"We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations
and then we concluded that there was enough evidence
to follow through with a full criminal investigation,"
said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of
Law Enforcement.

The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes,
have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some
of those questioned have been volunteers in
get-out-the-vote campaigns.

I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to
tell me what criminal activity had taken place.

"I can't talk about that," he said.

I asked if all the people interrogated were black.

"Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were
looking at - yes,'' he said.

He also said, "Most of them were elderly."

When I asked why, he said, "That's just the people we
selected out of a random sample to interview."

Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when
Southern whites used every imaginable form of
chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often
fought back by creating voters leagues, which were
organizations that helped to register, educate and
encourage black voters. It became a tradition that
continues in many places, including Florida, today.

Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who
found themselves face to face with state police
officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League
of Voters, which has been very successful in
mobilizing the city's black vote.

The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie
Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated
ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr.
Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George
W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well
spell the difference between victory and defeat.

The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this
so-called investigation by the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement.

Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr.
Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go
into the community to do voter registration, drive
people to the polls and help with absentee ballots.
They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100
for four or five months' work, just to offset things
like the cost of their gas. They see this political
activity as an important contribution to their
community. Some of the people in the community had
never cast a ballot until the league came to their
door and encouraged them to vote."

Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police
officers going into people's homes as part of an
ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is
threatening to undo much of the good work of the
league. He said, "One woman asked me, 'Am I going to
go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?' "

According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by
absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow
campaign workers to come to their homes. And
volunteers who have participated for years in
assisting people, particularly the elderly or
handicapped, are scared and don't want to risk a
criminal investigation."

Florida is a state that's very much in play in the
presidential election, with some polls showing John
Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police
investigation that throws a blanket of fear over
thousands of black voters can only help President
Bush.

The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black
vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home |
Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
Back to Top

Newspapers help elevate an issue the White House wants to dominate the fall campaign. But the sources are usually unnamed, the evidence old or contradictory.

It's the Media, Stupid.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000612547

The Al Qaeda Express: Newspapers help elevate an issue the White House wants to dominate the fall campaign. But the sources are usually unnamed, the evidence old or contradictory.

By William E. Jackson Jr.

(August 14, 2004) -- Last week I asked a sterling
reporter for a national newspaper: "Do you fellows
sometimes feel like you are on a runaway horse, and
cannot get off?" My point was that, starting with the
morning headlines of August 2, the national newspapers
have been preoccupied with government-inspired stores
citing anonymous sources (in the U.S., Britain and
Pakistan), talking about a "treasure trove" of old
discovered documents, just-captured agents of al
Qaeda, and fresh "streams of intelligence."

The Tom Ridge press conference of nearly two weeks ago
started the summer snowball rolling, and here has been
little sign of it slowing down. Just yesterday, on
Friday the 13th, came reports that the White House
really, really, expects a massive terrorist strike to
influence the election.

Headlines for the past twelve days recorded unfolding
events, based on carefully doled-out information, that
added up to a steadily evolving image of America at
war at home.

On Monday, August 2, every national newspaper led with
the raising of the color-coded alert to orange and
warnings from the chief of Homeland Security of al
Qaeda plans to attack major financial institutions.
The warnings were based on what all the papers at
first called new intelligence based on recently
discovered documents, chilling in their specificity.

By the next day, however, there was skepticism in the
air, reflected by The New York Times head: "Reports
That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials
Say." On August 4 the administration counter-attacked.
The Washington Post observed: "Seriousness of Threat
Defended Despite Dated Intelligence."

The rest of the week's meatiest headlines on homeland
security trumpeted intelligence revelations, arrests
abroad, al Qaeda on the prowl, all occurring within a
remarkably short time frame. By Monday, August 9, the
immediacy of the danger from domestic terrorists
was kicked up a notch, with "Tourist Copters in New
York City a Terror Target" and "Capitol Still Al Qaeda
Target, Official Says."

In all of this, the vast majority of stories in The
New York Times, to cite one example,originated with,
or relied upon, information from unnamed sources.

There is one inescapable conclusion from recent press
coverage of the steady streams of threat information
emanating from Washington and London and Pakistan.
National newspapers, however unwittingly, have been
drawn into "flooding the zone" with stories that move
to the forefront of public consciousness the issue
that the White House would like to have at the top of
the agenda in this election season: domestic security
and threats to the
homeland.

On any given day, it is clear that presidential staff,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, or an anonymous
intelligence official, can crank up the cycle again by
feeding the frenzy. Consider two stories that ran on
August 13 in the country's two leading newspapers.

Mike Allen reported in The Washington Post: "The Bush
administration believes more strongly than ever that
al Qaeda terrorists plan to try to influence the
presidential race with a massive pre-election attack,
a strike that is more likely to come in August or
September than in October, a White House official said
yesterday. The official ratcheted up administration
warnings of an election-related
attack on a day when President Bush and Vice President
Cheney were on the campaign trail contending that Sen.
John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) would be a weak commander in
chief. Some Democrats accuse the White House of
issuing repeated
terrorism warnings to inspire fear so voters will
hesitate to change leaders with the nation under
threat.

"The White House official, who spoke to reporters on
the condition of anonymity, said the government had
not gleaned any new information about political
motives for an attack since the spring, when
administration officials began saying they were
concerned about an attack in conjunction with the Nov.
2 election. Nothing to date indicates 'an imminent
operation,' the official said."

Meanwhile, David Johnston and David Sanger of The New
York Times reported: "Al Qaeda operatives updated
surveillance conducted at five financial institutions
in New York, New Jersey and Washington as recently as
this spring, according to a senior White House
official who said on Thursday that the authorities
still had no direct evidence of an active terror
plot."

Then, in Saturday's Post, Dan Eggen and John Lancaster
declared: "The new evidence suggests that al Qaeda is
battered but not beaten, and that a motley collection
of old hands and recent recruits has formed a nucleus
in Pakistan that is pushing forward with plans for
attacks in the United States, according to U.S. and
Pakistani officials....

"The Bush administration generally views the recent
arrests and intelligence discoveries not only as a
window into al Qaeda's operations, but also as a
serious blow to what remains of the network....Some
Pakistani intelligence officials are more cautious.
They say that such arrests may have a limited impact
both on al Qaeda, which they view as already
dispersed, and Islamist terrorists who are inspired by
bin Laden but not beholden to him."

This sort of "warnings roulette" will play out over
and over again, whenever the executive branch wants to
inform us, and to scare us, with the White House
calling balls and strikes in a one-sided game.

It is so subtle, yet so obvious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Jackson Jr. ,a frequent contributor, served
as executive director of President Carter's General
Advisory Committee on Arms Control.

Top Bush supporter funds attacks on Kerry's war record

The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's top fund-raising in Mass. is funding
the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader, the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's top fund-raiser in TX (well, Kenny Boy has
run into some trouble) is funding the disgusting
attack smearing Sen. John F. Kerry's extraordinary
record of courage on the battlefield (condemned even
by the recently politically spayed Sen. John McCain
(R-AZ)...When Howard Dean (D-Jeffords) challenged
the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader about
the Bush cabal's Mass. fat cat funding his campaign,
the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader said,
"Maybe he cares about civil liberties." What will he
say about this guy? That he's deeply committed to
veterans affairs? And where are the
propapunditgandists of cable news networks and the
sunday morning shows (Fork the Nation, Meat the Press
and Week in Revision)? Where are the Editorial page
writers for the NYTwits and the WASHPs(who provide
cover for the lie-proffering that goes their front
pages)? AWOL, and on the dole. Well, it is all going to blow up
in their faces (politiically for the GOP and economically for the "US mainstream news media"), unless, of course, they don't blow
something up in our faces first (literally)...