This is something I have wondered aloud in past postings, both here on the blog and other places. Paul McGuire delves into this. - Sailor
Kerry the Manchurian Candidate
Paul McGuire
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004
via NewsMax.com
John Kerry is the Manchurian Candidate. He has been programmed by his own ideology to kill the American Dream. If John Kerry is elected President of the United States, he along with the Democratic Party, the courts and the liberal media will unleash a brutally dark future for America.
The problem is that John Kerry along with his allies in politics, media and the judicial system are completely blind to the grave dangers of their own ideology. Like the jubilant workers who joined the Communist Revolution in Russia, these Kerry-led Utopians will find themselves utterly betrayed by their own belief system.
Story Continues Below
The root of the problem is that John Kerry’s political and social ideology is essentially a modern revision of classic Marxism, and like Marxism it will fail to bring a “workers paradise.” Instead, it will bring totalitarianism, the loss of freedom and the demise of the United States of America.
During the Democratic National Convention we kept hearing the slogan “Help Is on the Way!” In George Orwell’s novel "1984," “Big Brother” used slogans like “Work Is Freedom.” The Democratic Party and John Kerry are misleading the American people when they say “Help Is on the Way.” What they really mean is that “Big Government,” “Big Brother,” is on the way.
Government has no power to help without raising taxes and expanding its already giant bureaucracy. What this really means, as President George W. Bush has pointed out, is raising taxes on the middle class. The government will take money from the middle class and redistribute the wealth among the poor. This means that American soccer moms can look forward to standing in line for Third World-style health care along with illegal immigrants, drug addicts and prostitutes.
Kerry’s “universal health care” is really “Big Government Health Care.” It is the same thing as Cuban, Scandavian, Russian and Chinese “universal health care.” I have had dozens of callers on "The Paul McGuire Show" who fled these countries to come to the United States. They have related horror stories of waiting months and even years for treatment.
In the Scandanavian countries, dentists will pull teeth instead of filling cavities because it is cheaper. In Canada one lady said that after she went to the “government health care dentist” her fillings fell out of her mouth on the way home. Kerry’s “universal health care” is Third World-style health care!
John Kerry will appoint radical judges and ultra-liberal Supreme Court justices who allow the far left to do an end run around the democratic process and enact dangerous and radical social reform. This will lead to a loss of freedom of speech, religious liberties and constitutional freedoms. John Kerry has already told us that before he does anything it will “have to pass a global test.” That is simply code for “I will begin to surrender U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.”
What John Kerry, the Democratic Party and liberal media do not understand is that their ideology has very serious self-destructive qualities. Big Government and socialist economic policies always lead to a loss of freedoms, economic stagnation and either hard or soft totalitarianism.
Like the old “Hollywood Left” that continued to believe in Communism despite the news reports of mass slaughter by Lenin and Chairman Mao, Kerry and his followers continue to cling to the toxic myth that Big Government will solve all of our problems. Ronald Reagan understood very clearly that not only will Big Government not solve our problems but that Big Government IS the problem!
However, John Kerry and his ideological buddies at the New York Times and CBS do not fully understand that ideas have consequences, and that bad ideas have bad consequences. Kerry and his ilk are stuck in an ideological time warp birthed in the counter-culture of the 1960s. The images of John Kerry with his long hair, the anti-war marches, the pictures of Jane Fonda should burn into your mind like scenes from "The Manchurian Candidate."
John Kerry, the Democratic Party, the liberal media and the judicial activists have all been programmed to kill the American Dream. They have been seduced by an ideology that has proven not to liberate but destroy every nation that has embraced its precepts.
This election represents a life-and-death struggle for the future of the United States of America. Vote for George W. Bush!
Paul McGuire is the syndicated talk show host of "The Paul McGuire Show," syndicated nationally and airing from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. from Los Angeles on KBRT. McGuire is the author of 14 books including "Countdown to Armageddon" and a regular commentator on several national news networks. Paul can be reached at his Web site paulmcguire.com
Friday, October 29, 2004
We Are All Floridians Now
Be ready for a very long night come November 2nd. The dem lawyers will be all over the country trying to ensure a poodle victory. Brew lots of coffee! - Sailor
We Are All Floridians Now
By Douglas Kern
Published 10/29/2004
Tech Central Station
The 2004 presidential election is shaping up to be uglier than an octogenarian stripper convention. Look for intimidation, blatant vote fraud, bureaucratic incompetence, judicial shenanigans, and the promise of an ugly, heavily litigated November - and that's just at my house.
It's grotesque. Chaotic. Undignified.
It's just the way we like it.
The tumult that Florida suffered in 2000 was no fluke. Florida's electoral imbroglio was the perfect political storm -- a confluence of bad faith, aggressive lawyers, shabby laws, faulty procedures, and arrogant judges. And it will happen again, because no one has an interest in fixing the problem.
Do the lawyers want to fix the election laws? Many lawyers will make a killing in November, growing fat off the fees from election litigation. Why kill the golden goose? Moreover, the status quo holds out the possibility that a sufficiently clever legal strategy can subvert electoral results in close cases. What lawyer wants to relinquish that power?
Do the state legislatures want to fix the election laws? The problem only comes up once every four years, and state legislatures have enough trouble with the problems that arise annually. Consider also that election chaos can launch political careers. Katherine Harris is now a Congresswoman. But the more damning problem is the expense of election reform. Reliable voting machines, procedures, and workers cost money -- money that can't easily be funneled towards politically useful constituents. State budgets for "Improvements to the Legitimacy of Federal Elections" tend not to run a surplus.
Do the judges want to fix the election laws? Consider how many judges dream of handing a presidential election to their party's candidate. And even if a neutral, unbiased judge fairly resolves an election dispute, there's always an appeal. This is America, and by God, if there's an aggrieved minority looking to subvert democracy to accomplish a goal, there's an appellate judge somewhere who will make it happen. It's not like any consequences attach to judicial election-thievery. How many members of the Florida Supreme Court lost their jobs over the 2000 election? How many Supreme Court justices?
Do the political parties want to fix the election laws? Ordinarily, when their candidates lose a major election, political parties enter a period of soul-searching and self-examination in which cherished beliefs are contested, flawed paradigms are discarded, and new champions anointed. But soul-searching is uncomfortable. It requires admissions of error. It unsettles the established party elders. And, most important, it tends to get people fired. As political party hacks like their jobs, they'll embrace any outcome that allows them to dodge responsibility for failed campaigns. "Lose? We didn't lose. Blame the courts!"
Moreover, it's difficult to know in advance if a particular electoral reform will favor or disfavor a particular party. Who wants to be the genius who implements an electoral "reform" that ends up knocking your guy out of the presidency?
Do the candidates want to fix the election laws? The threat of a close race with a heavily contested, ambiguous outcome is a boffo tool for getting out the vote among the faithful. The Democrats have been waving the bloody orange-juice-soaked shirt of 2000 for four years now. And the Republicans have cheerfully sounded the alarm over shady Democrat get-out-the-vote stunts. Consider the title of the new book from formidable Republican pundit Hugh Hewitt: "If it's Not Close, They Can't Cheat."
Additionally, Florida-style fiascos present candidates with a prisoner's dilemma: the first candidate to eschew the knee-to-the-groin approach to recounts will get reamed if his opponent doesn't reciprocate the gesture. It's nice to think that upstanding candidates will accept a lost presidential race in order to affirm the validity and legitimacy of the presidential election process. It's nice to believe in unicorns, too. But the election arms race of lawsuits and accusations has already started, and MAD -- Mutually Assured Disenfranchisement -- is still the guiding policy.
Does the mainstream media want to fix…oh, forget it. The mainstream media doesn't want to fix anything. Fixes don't score big Nielsens. But broken democratic processes keep the masses glued to their sets. For a week after the 2000 election, I did nothing but channel-surf and hit "refresh" on my internet browser as several million people worldwide joined me in my quest to know the final outcome of the election seven microseconds before the rest of the world. I'm surprised that the MSM isn't doing everything in its power to ensure that Florida 2000 happens again, and in as many states as possible. (Or…is it?)
And, finally, what about us? Do we, the American people, want to turn away from month-long election processes and hanging chads and near-riots outside of recount stations?
Probably not.
Everyone claims to want closure on the night of the election. But if you knew that your candidate was going to lose narrowly, or even that he was likely to lose narrowly, wouldn't you want to stretch the process out just a little longer? Wouldn't you want to hold on to the hope that, somehow, a friendly court would undo the injustices inflicted upon your hero? And if your guy can't win, the boundless indignation and moral superiority of being the aggrieved, cheated party is a nifty consolation prize.
Election laws will eventually improve; when the novelty of recounts wears off, the electorate will demand (and grudgingly pay for) better systems. But even with improved laws, we can expect blistering, down-to-the-wire presidential elections for the foreseeable future. The War on Terror is far from over, and control of the presidency will make an enormous difference in how (or whether) this war will be fought. Consider, too, that presidential elections are the only means by which the people can influence the federal judiciary. As the power of the federal judiciary grows unchecked, the need to control the source of judicial appointments grows as well. The stakes in presidential elections will get higher and higher.
The fundamental problem is that the problems are fundamental. The red/blue divide demonstrates the profoundly different worldviews that Americans possess. No politician has found a way to bridge that gap. And when stark differences are irreconcilable and evenly split, elections get interesting.
The Republic didn't collapse after Bush vs. Gore and it won't collapse after the 2004 election. But while the Founding Fathers anticipated yeasty elections, they surely did not expect litigious attacks on the very legitimacy of the election process itself. American society has grown fond of resolving hard political problems through lawsuits and judicial fiats. But elections fought through lawsuits are ultimately a means of avoiding a genuinely political confrontation. And sometimes, there's no substitute for an ugly election brawl. Let's make it an honest fight. But let's fight.
Some reforms would help to defuse presidential elections, of course: the reduction of the federal government's scope and power; a revival of federalism; and the appointment of judges who reject judicial activism, to name a few. But none of these things will happen anytime soon. Thus, presidential elections will be ferociously contentious until the red states or the blue states decisively win the argument about what kind of nation America ought to be. Such a victory will engender a political realignment, and thus a (short) period of political goodwill and accomplishment.
But until that day arrives, bring your camcorder to the polls, and be sure to get the thugs and car vandals entirely within the viewfinder. And brew a strong pot of coffee or three for the night of November 2nd, as we sit up all night and watch the madness unfold. We've chosen this weirdness. We ought to enjoy it.
We Are All Floridians Now
By Douglas Kern
Published 10/29/2004
Tech Central Station
The 2004 presidential election is shaping up to be uglier than an octogenarian stripper convention. Look for intimidation, blatant vote fraud, bureaucratic incompetence, judicial shenanigans, and the promise of an ugly, heavily litigated November - and that's just at my house.
It's grotesque. Chaotic. Undignified.
It's just the way we like it.
The tumult that Florida suffered in 2000 was no fluke. Florida's electoral imbroglio was the perfect political storm -- a confluence of bad faith, aggressive lawyers, shabby laws, faulty procedures, and arrogant judges. And it will happen again, because no one has an interest in fixing the problem.
Do the lawyers want to fix the election laws? Many lawyers will make a killing in November, growing fat off the fees from election litigation. Why kill the golden goose? Moreover, the status quo holds out the possibility that a sufficiently clever legal strategy can subvert electoral results in close cases. What lawyer wants to relinquish that power?
Do the state legislatures want to fix the election laws? The problem only comes up once every four years, and state legislatures have enough trouble with the problems that arise annually. Consider also that election chaos can launch political careers. Katherine Harris is now a Congresswoman. But the more damning problem is the expense of election reform. Reliable voting machines, procedures, and workers cost money -- money that can't easily be funneled towards politically useful constituents. State budgets for "Improvements to the Legitimacy of Federal Elections" tend not to run a surplus.
Do the judges want to fix the election laws? Consider how many judges dream of handing a presidential election to their party's candidate. And even if a neutral, unbiased judge fairly resolves an election dispute, there's always an appeal. This is America, and by God, if there's an aggrieved minority looking to subvert democracy to accomplish a goal, there's an appellate judge somewhere who will make it happen. It's not like any consequences attach to judicial election-thievery. How many members of the Florida Supreme Court lost their jobs over the 2000 election? How many Supreme Court justices?
Do the political parties want to fix the election laws? Ordinarily, when their candidates lose a major election, political parties enter a period of soul-searching and self-examination in which cherished beliefs are contested, flawed paradigms are discarded, and new champions anointed. But soul-searching is uncomfortable. It requires admissions of error. It unsettles the established party elders. And, most important, it tends to get people fired. As political party hacks like their jobs, they'll embrace any outcome that allows them to dodge responsibility for failed campaigns. "Lose? We didn't lose. Blame the courts!"
Moreover, it's difficult to know in advance if a particular electoral reform will favor or disfavor a particular party. Who wants to be the genius who implements an electoral "reform" that ends up knocking your guy out of the presidency?
Do the candidates want to fix the election laws? The threat of a close race with a heavily contested, ambiguous outcome is a boffo tool for getting out the vote among the faithful. The Democrats have been waving the bloody orange-juice-soaked shirt of 2000 for four years now. And the Republicans have cheerfully sounded the alarm over shady Democrat get-out-the-vote stunts. Consider the title of the new book from formidable Republican pundit Hugh Hewitt: "If it's Not Close, They Can't Cheat."
Additionally, Florida-style fiascos present candidates with a prisoner's dilemma: the first candidate to eschew the knee-to-the-groin approach to recounts will get reamed if his opponent doesn't reciprocate the gesture. It's nice to think that upstanding candidates will accept a lost presidential race in order to affirm the validity and legitimacy of the presidential election process. It's nice to believe in unicorns, too. But the election arms race of lawsuits and accusations has already started, and MAD -- Mutually Assured Disenfranchisement -- is still the guiding policy.
Does the mainstream media want to fix…oh, forget it. The mainstream media doesn't want to fix anything. Fixes don't score big Nielsens. But broken democratic processes keep the masses glued to their sets. For a week after the 2000 election, I did nothing but channel-surf and hit "refresh" on my internet browser as several million people worldwide joined me in my quest to know the final outcome of the election seven microseconds before the rest of the world. I'm surprised that the MSM isn't doing everything in its power to ensure that Florida 2000 happens again, and in as many states as possible. (Or…is it?)
And, finally, what about us? Do we, the American people, want to turn away from month-long election processes and hanging chads and near-riots outside of recount stations?
Probably not.
Everyone claims to want closure on the night of the election. But if you knew that your candidate was going to lose narrowly, or even that he was likely to lose narrowly, wouldn't you want to stretch the process out just a little longer? Wouldn't you want to hold on to the hope that, somehow, a friendly court would undo the injustices inflicted upon your hero? And if your guy can't win, the boundless indignation and moral superiority of being the aggrieved, cheated party is a nifty consolation prize.
Election laws will eventually improve; when the novelty of recounts wears off, the electorate will demand (and grudgingly pay for) better systems. But even with improved laws, we can expect blistering, down-to-the-wire presidential elections for the foreseeable future. The War on Terror is far from over, and control of the presidency will make an enormous difference in how (or whether) this war will be fought. Consider, too, that presidential elections are the only means by which the people can influence the federal judiciary. As the power of the federal judiciary grows unchecked, the need to control the source of judicial appointments grows as well. The stakes in presidential elections will get higher and higher.
The fundamental problem is that the problems are fundamental. The red/blue divide demonstrates the profoundly different worldviews that Americans possess. No politician has found a way to bridge that gap. And when stark differences are irreconcilable and evenly split, elections get interesting.
The Republic didn't collapse after Bush vs. Gore and it won't collapse after the 2004 election. But while the Founding Fathers anticipated yeasty elections, they surely did not expect litigious attacks on the very legitimacy of the election process itself. American society has grown fond of resolving hard political problems through lawsuits and judicial fiats. But elections fought through lawsuits are ultimately a means of avoiding a genuinely political confrontation. And sometimes, there's no substitute for an ugly election brawl. Let's make it an honest fight. But let's fight.
Some reforms would help to defuse presidential elections, of course: the reduction of the federal government's scope and power; a revival of federalism; and the appointment of judges who reject judicial activism, to name a few. But none of these things will happen anytime soon. Thus, presidential elections will be ferociously contentious until the red states or the blue states decisively win the argument about what kind of nation America ought to be. Such a victory will engender a political realignment, and thus a (short) period of political goodwill and accomplishment.
But until that day arrives, bring your camcorder to the polls, and be sure to get the thugs and car vandals entirely within the viewfinder. And brew a strong pot of coffee or three for the night of November 2nd, as we sit up all night and watch the madness unfold. We've chosen this weirdness. We ought to enjoy it.
John Kerry's 19 Year Attack on Investors
John Kerry's 19 Year Attack on Investors
By Daniel Clifton Published 10/29/2004
Tech Central Station
Next week's election is important for middle-class investors. A number of public policy issues hang in the balance that will influence shareholder returns. But uncovering John Kerry's intentions on public policy issues is difficult because he speaks in broad generalities which give us very little evidence of his real intention. Moreover, he continues to claim he was for an issue at one time in his life and now he is against it.
Both of these patterns are extremely prevalent in analyzing what Kerry has proposed to do on investor related issues. As a result, the American Shareholders Association (ASA) has undertaken a study of his 19-year Senate record believing that the best way to determine what his goals as President will be is to look at where he has been. We found that Kerry has spent the past 19 years in the Senate attacking investors and his votes have had a detrimental impact on investors.
The result of Kerry's voting record is quite surprising. For all his years in the Senate he appeared to talk about a pro-growth agenda, yet when the record was examined he essentially opposed investors on nearly every vote offered in the Senate in his tenure.
Capital Gains Tax Reduction
Despite claiming that he has voted to reduce the capital gains tax, the ASA analysis could not find one example of Kerry voting to reduce the capital gains tax. He voted to increase the capital gains tax by 40 percent in 1986 and voted against capital gains tax reduction at least 15 times since 1989. These votes were important to shareholders: the largest drag on shareholder returns is from the capital gains tax and the tax itself reduces the after tax return on equities.
To demonstrate the impact the capital gains tax has on the individual investor (and the consequences of Kerry's votes), we compare Roth Individual IRAs which are exempt from capital gains taxes with a taxable account. In this example, the double tax on capital gains reduces the lifetime return on investment by 56 percent.
An individual at 29 years of age with $40,000 of income making a $3,000 contribution per year to a Roth IRA will retire with more than $772,000 of income. Under a taxable account, however, the return is dramatically reduced to less than $343,000, and thus, the hypothetical investor lost 56 percent of his/her investment compared to the Roth IRA. Any reduction in capital gains tax offsets the enormous impact the tax places on a lifetime return for investors and Kerry sided against investors each and every time.
But capital gains taxes are more than just lowering the returns to shareholders. Capital gains tax reductions increase stock prices by altering the risk adjusted, after-tax return on equities. Kerry had 15 opportunities to vote for increasing stock prices since 1989 but he voted against shareholders every single time including the very successful 1997 and 2003 reductions. In both times, more than $2 trillion of new shareholder wealth was created in the first 180 days following their passage. Conversely, Kerry voted to increase the capital gains tax by 40 percent in 1986 as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which reduced shareholder wealth by $200 billion upon passage.
Double Taxation of Dividends
In one of the most appalling examples of a politician "saying one thing and doing another" Sen. Kerry turned his back on investors concerning the double taxation of dividends. On December 3, 2002, Kerry delivered a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in which he proclaimed "we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends."
President Bush followed one month later with a proposal to abolish the double tax and Kerry, in a stunning reversal, quickly denounced the proposal as a give away to the rich and voted against the legislation.
Even without Kerry's support the double tax was reduced by as much as 62 percent and just as important, the new rate of 15 percent was equalized with the capital gains tax rate. The result of the dividend tax cut has been positive: Dividend issuance has reversed its 25 year decline and more companies are increasing dividend payments to its shareholders.
Individual Retirement Accounts
One factor driving the unprecedented growth of investors has been the expansion of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Despite widespread knowledge of the benefits these investment vehicles provide, Kerry voted to significantly restrict IRAs in 1986 and has voted at least 10 times against IRA expansion.
The double tax on investment income reduces the after tax return on investment for investors. As such, policymakers seeking to increase private retirement savings created IRAs, which allowed savings to accumulate without the double tax. Initially, IRAs were extremely limited, but in 1981 participation was expanded as part of the Reagan tax cuts and the program took off. From 1980 to 1986, annual contributions to IRAs rose nearly ten-fold, from $4 billion to $38 billion.
Yet, Sen. Kerry voted to restrict IRA contributions as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which imposed severe consequences on IRA accounts. According to the Treasury Department, the level of annual IRA contributions fell sharply and never recovered from $38 billion in 1986 to $15 billion in 1987 and $8.4 billion in 1995. Participation also declined from 15.5 million IRA participants in 1986 to just 4 million by 1997.
While families making over $40,000 were forced to stop participating, savings also dropped among families retaining full eligibility. In fact, participation declined by 40 percent between 1986 and 1987 for families still eligible for the program, despite the fact that the change in law did not affect them.
The decision to restrict IRAs had a significant, negative impact. But Kerry has been given at least 10 chances to correct his mistake since then and he has failed every time. He voted against IRA expansion twice in 1989 and twice in 1997 as well as once in 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, and 2001. He also abstained from the final 2001 tax cut which successfully allowed investors to increase their contributions in a year to $5,000.
Even on the most popular investor issues, such as IRAs, Kerry has a consistent opposition to ensuring middle-income investors can maximize their returns. His vote to restrict IRAs and his 10 votes against expansion indicates he may not even want this program in place if he is elected President.
Other Important Investor Issues
Free trade and the opening of markets appeared to be the one issue Kerry was aligned with investors on as a Senator. Over the course of the campaign, however, he has increasingly abandoned his long held belief in the benefits of free and open markets to consumers, shareholders, and workers.
Kerry voted in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. He voted at least 10 times to grant sitting Presidents Fast Track Authority to negotiate trade agreements. But to line up labor union support, he has repeatedly denounced the agreements, has promised to review existing trade agreements in his first 100 days of office.
Tort reform is another key issue facing investors because company liabilities affect profits and the value of shareholder wealth. Kerry's pick of John Edwards as the vice presidential nominee should give investors pause: passage of badly needed class action and asbestos reform will not be completed if Kerry is elected president.
Overall, Kerry has been an enemy of the shareholder during his 19 year Senate tenure. His election next week would be troubling for American shareholders.
Daniel Clifton is executive director of American Shareholders Association. He can be reached at dclifton@americanshareholders.com
By Daniel Clifton Published 10/29/2004
Tech Central Station
Next week's election is important for middle-class investors. A number of public policy issues hang in the balance that will influence shareholder returns. But uncovering John Kerry's intentions on public policy issues is difficult because he speaks in broad generalities which give us very little evidence of his real intention. Moreover, he continues to claim he was for an issue at one time in his life and now he is against it.
Both of these patterns are extremely prevalent in analyzing what Kerry has proposed to do on investor related issues. As a result, the American Shareholders Association (ASA) has undertaken a study of his 19-year Senate record believing that the best way to determine what his goals as President will be is to look at where he has been. We found that Kerry has spent the past 19 years in the Senate attacking investors and his votes have had a detrimental impact on investors.
The result of Kerry's voting record is quite surprising. For all his years in the Senate he appeared to talk about a pro-growth agenda, yet when the record was examined he essentially opposed investors on nearly every vote offered in the Senate in his tenure.
Capital Gains Tax Reduction
Despite claiming that he has voted to reduce the capital gains tax, the ASA analysis could not find one example of Kerry voting to reduce the capital gains tax. He voted to increase the capital gains tax by 40 percent in 1986 and voted against capital gains tax reduction at least 15 times since 1989. These votes were important to shareholders: the largest drag on shareholder returns is from the capital gains tax and the tax itself reduces the after tax return on equities.
To demonstrate the impact the capital gains tax has on the individual investor (and the consequences of Kerry's votes), we compare Roth Individual IRAs which are exempt from capital gains taxes with a taxable account. In this example, the double tax on capital gains reduces the lifetime return on investment by 56 percent.
An individual at 29 years of age with $40,000 of income making a $3,000 contribution per year to a Roth IRA will retire with more than $772,000 of income. Under a taxable account, however, the return is dramatically reduced to less than $343,000, and thus, the hypothetical investor lost 56 percent of his/her investment compared to the Roth IRA. Any reduction in capital gains tax offsets the enormous impact the tax places on a lifetime return for investors and Kerry sided against investors each and every time.
But capital gains taxes are more than just lowering the returns to shareholders. Capital gains tax reductions increase stock prices by altering the risk adjusted, after-tax return on equities. Kerry had 15 opportunities to vote for increasing stock prices since 1989 but he voted against shareholders every single time including the very successful 1997 and 2003 reductions. In both times, more than $2 trillion of new shareholder wealth was created in the first 180 days following their passage. Conversely, Kerry voted to increase the capital gains tax by 40 percent in 1986 as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which reduced shareholder wealth by $200 billion upon passage.
Double Taxation of Dividends
In one of the most appalling examples of a politician "saying one thing and doing another" Sen. Kerry turned his back on investors concerning the double taxation of dividends. On December 3, 2002, Kerry delivered a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in which he proclaimed "we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends."
President Bush followed one month later with a proposal to abolish the double tax and Kerry, in a stunning reversal, quickly denounced the proposal as a give away to the rich and voted against the legislation.
Even without Kerry's support the double tax was reduced by as much as 62 percent and just as important, the new rate of 15 percent was equalized with the capital gains tax rate. The result of the dividend tax cut has been positive: Dividend issuance has reversed its 25 year decline and more companies are increasing dividend payments to its shareholders.
Individual Retirement Accounts
One factor driving the unprecedented growth of investors has been the expansion of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Despite widespread knowledge of the benefits these investment vehicles provide, Kerry voted to significantly restrict IRAs in 1986 and has voted at least 10 times against IRA expansion.
The double tax on investment income reduces the after tax return on investment for investors. As such, policymakers seeking to increase private retirement savings created IRAs, which allowed savings to accumulate without the double tax. Initially, IRAs were extremely limited, but in 1981 participation was expanded as part of the Reagan tax cuts and the program took off. From 1980 to 1986, annual contributions to IRAs rose nearly ten-fold, from $4 billion to $38 billion.
Yet, Sen. Kerry voted to restrict IRA contributions as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which imposed severe consequences on IRA accounts. According to the Treasury Department, the level of annual IRA contributions fell sharply and never recovered from $38 billion in 1986 to $15 billion in 1987 and $8.4 billion in 1995. Participation also declined from 15.5 million IRA participants in 1986 to just 4 million by 1997.
While families making over $40,000 were forced to stop participating, savings also dropped among families retaining full eligibility. In fact, participation declined by 40 percent between 1986 and 1987 for families still eligible for the program, despite the fact that the change in law did not affect them.
The decision to restrict IRAs had a significant, negative impact. But Kerry has been given at least 10 chances to correct his mistake since then and he has failed every time. He voted against IRA expansion twice in 1989 and twice in 1997 as well as once in 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, and 2001. He also abstained from the final 2001 tax cut which successfully allowed investors to increase their contributions in a year to $5,000.
Even on the most popular investor issues, such as IRAs, Kerry has a consistent opposition to ensuring middle-income investors can maximize their returns. His vote to restrict IRAs and his 10 votes against expansion indicates he may not even want this program in place if he is elected President.
Other Important Investor Issues
Free trade and the opening of markets appeared to be the one issue Kerry was aligned with investors on as a Senator. Over the course of the campaign, however, he has increasingly abandoned his long held belief in the benefits of free and open markets to consumers, shareholders, and workers.
Kerry voted in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. He voted at least 10 times to grant sitting Presidents Fast Track Authority to negotiate trade agreements. But to line up labor union support, he has repeatedly denounced the agreements, has promised to review existing trade agreements in his first 100 days of office.
Tort reform is another key issue facing investors because company liabilities affect profits and the value of shareholder wealth. Kerry's pick of John Edwards as the vice presidential nominee should give investors pause: passage of badly needed class action and asbestos reform will not be completed if Kerry is elected president.
Overall, Kerry has been an enemy of the shareholder during his 19 year Senate tenure. His election next week would be troubling for American shareholders.
Daniel Clifton is executive director of American Shareholders Association. He can be reached at dclifton@americanshareholders.com
THE JOY OF DEFEATISM
War Blog
By FrontPage MagazineFrontPageMagazine.com October 29, 2004
THE JOY OF DEFEATISM
We frequently hear leftists compare our military situation in Iraq to that of Vietnam, but John Kerry is unique among lefitsts, I believe, in comparing Iraq to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. He did so today in Toledo, Ohio (not in Florida). The essence of the comparison was that, whereas John Kennedy took responsibility (sort of) for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Bush refuses to "look America in the eye and say to America 'I take responsibility, it is my fault."'
In reality, of course, President Bush has taken responsibility for the war in Iraq. If he hasn't accepted "fault," it may be because, unlike in Cuba, we overthrew the tyrant at issue in one of the most successful operations in military history. And, as Captain Ed points out, even with the difficulties we have faced as we have rebuilt the country and moved Iraq towards democracy, we haven't lost as many men in the nineteen months since our invasion as were killed or captured in a single week at the Bay of Pigs. Iraq will be holding free elections in less than three months. Cuba's have yet to be scheduled.
We have noted before how John Kerry seems to regard Sept. 12, 2001 as a shining moment in American history because much of the world was united in feeling sorry for us. He has now found another high point -- the day that his hero, JFK, took some responsibility for his ignominious failure to keep his promise to support the Cuban ex-pats he sent into battle against Castro. And Kerry apparently remains quite proud of that magic day when he himself took responsibility, before a Senate Committe, for the crimes of the "army of Genghis Khan." One shudders to imagine what great new moments await our country if Kerry becomes president. Quite possibly a Kennedy-style betrayal of the Iraqis, for starters.
Meanwhile, Val Prieto, who has family members who served in Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs invasion, is not amused. He writes: "Like the men of Brigade 2506, the Iraqis are fighting for their freedom. They depend on the strength of not just the US forces serving alongside them, but of the strength and conviction of the one man leading them. John Forbes Kerry is not fit walk amongst these men, much less lead them." Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.powerlineblog.com
*
FROM A SOURCE CLOSE TO THE CAMPAIGN
Jim Geraghty reporting:
Just heard from a source close to the campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels.
According to the Bushies, the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers.
They think Bush is ahead by a few points nationally. They expect the next round of tracking polls to show a bit of a bump.
The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones - Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.
Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup - Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.
An exit poll of those who have already voted show Bush ahead by 15 points! [UPDATE: This is ahead 15 points overall, nationwide, not just in Michigan. Obviously, those who have already voted are only a small, small segment of the electorate at large, so one should not read too much into this number. But it is interesting.]
Undecided voters appear to be breaking Bush’s way - some days he has a slight lead, other days it’s right around 50-50. (Note this would be considerably better than the 1/3 calculated that Bush needs here.
Finally, the ammo dump story appears to have left the Kerry campaign deep in al-Qaqaa.
Tommy Franks is going to enter this story and rip Kerry and the New York Times a new one. The Kerry folks are acting like they realized they have botched this story, and want to shift back to domestic topics. Lockhart, Bill Richardson on Imus — when asked about al-QaQaa, they dodge the question and quickly try to bring up other issues.
The campaign is going to avoid the Russian angle and go with the straightforward, “As the facts mount in this story, American people have a choice between believing Kerry-NYTimes-CBS or believing Bush and the Troops.”
This source close to the campaign didn’t say it, but I wonder if the Bush administration wants to deal with Russia in its own manner, and not have whatever diplomatic confrontations are going on behind the scenes complicated by a furious American electorate blaming Russia for hiding Iraq’s weapons and explosives. Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
*
CIA, FBI AUTHENTICATE NEW AL QAEDA TERROR TAPE; ABCNEWS EXECUTIVES CONSIDER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AIRINGThe CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated a disturbing new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead, a man claims on the video.Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend. The network has withheld airing it, initially citing concerns over its authenticity.One senior federal official alleged ABCNEWS is now holding back from broadcasting any portion of the video out of fear it will be seen as a political move by the network during election week.One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance.""This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained. A second ABC source told DRUDGE Thursday morning: "ABCNEWS has shared this tape with both the CIA and the FBI as part of our reporting process. ABC News is committed to accurate, credible and complete journalism and is applying the same scrutiny to this tape that we apply to all raw information. ABCNEWS continues to report this story aggressively." MORE: The terrorist's face is concealed by a headdress, and he speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual. The tape appears to be from al-Qaeda's media liaison organization. It has a banner crediting the Sahab Production Committee. The speaker refers to Bin Ladin and Zawahiri as "our leaders" and praises the 11 September attacks. Intelligence officials believe: Videotape message likely produced in late summer '04 due to references to current events such as the 9/11 Commission.Individual is college educated, either American born or raised in the U.S.The U.S. is actively seeking to identify the individual. Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman of Southern California - remains the chief candidate but another still unknown individual may be possible.Pearlman was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks. US intelligence officials say the danger is that if this individual is an American citizen, he will be immersed in the culture and customs and have the ability to travel in America freely and unnoticed. Developing... Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.drudgereport.com
*
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING HMX/RDX
ABC News reported late last night that the amount of high-tech explosives at Al Qaqaa has been wildly exaggerated by Iraqi officials, the New York Times, and CBS. Rather than the 380 tons of explosives which cannot be located, new documents put the amount stashed at Al Qaqaa at around 3 tons instead (via Instapundit):
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
This is the type of research that one would have expected from a news organization that considers itself professional -- doing research before reporting on something in order to avoid decontextualizing it, or getting critical facts incorrect. In short, one would expect the geniuses at the Gray Lady to understand the difference between 3 tons and 380 tons, and to get the numbers right before publication.
ABC also reports that the IAEA "seal" hardly guaranteed security on these dangerous weapons at Al Qaqaa:
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
Let me get this straight. The IAEA has screamed that the materials it inspected remained secure under its control until the Americans came bumbling into Iraq. However, their secure environment included holes in the walls covered by easily-removable slats -- and now they wonder how the materials could have possibly disappeared? Who are these people at the IAEA, the Keystone Kops? The most frightening aspect of this story isn't that the terrorists may have had the HMX in their hands for years now. It's that people like Mohammed ElBaradei and his staff have been entrusted with securing nuclear weapons and materials.
If anything, the attempted hit piece on President Bush by the NY Times has turned out to be quite the public service. Thanks to the extraordinarily incompetent misfire by the NYT and CBS, we now see the overwhelming bias of two major news organizations, the desperation and gullibility of John Kerry, and the incredible failure of the UN to provide any kind of security in an age of Islamist terror and state sponsorship.
NY TIMES STILL GETS AL QAQAA WRONG
Our local ABC affiliate ran a videotape purporting to show the existence of HMX, RDX, and PETN at the Al Qaqaa storage facility, and the New York Times ran a new story heralding this videotape as the confirmation it desperately needs to rescue its credibility:
A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The tape, broadcast on Wednesday night by the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, appeared to confirm a warning given earlier this month to the agency by Iraqi officials, who said that hundreds of tons of high-grade explosives, powerful enough to bring down buildings or detonate nuclear weapons, had vanished from the site after the invasion of Iraq.
Well, at least that's the lead in the Times' story. Fifteen paragraphs into the story, the Times finally tells its readers that it cannot even confirm that the video was shot at Al Qaqaa:
The Minneapolis television crew was with an Army unit that was camped near Al Qaqaa, members of the crew said. The reporter and cameraman said that although they were not told specifically that they were being taken to Al Qaqaa by the military, their videotape matches pictures of the site taken by United Nations weapons inspectors, according to weapons experts.
The boxes on the videotape carried markings that say "Al Qaqaa", but take another look at the boxes as shown in the videotape capture here. What do you see? An American soldier prying the crate open. Why would an American soldier pry the box open? Perhaps to check to see what's inside? I don't know what color the sky is in the New York Times' world, but that looks like a search to me.
In fact, that's what the Times' caption states:
A videotape from April 18, 2003, shows a soldier prying open a box in a bunker in Al Qaqaa.
Take a good look at the box itself. How many pounds do you suppose that crate could hold -- maybe 50 pounds, tops? Same with the barrels in this second photograph. At that rate, you'd need 40 crates of this stuff for a single ton of material, and more than 15,000 crates for 380 tons. More likely, these crates contained the vials that the 3ID reported finding at Al Qaqaa, and not the massive amounts of HMX and RDX previously reported by the IAEA to have been stored there.
But the collapse does not end there. The Kerry Spot notices something else about the crates that indicate some other material was contained in them. They're labeled as Explosive 1.1 D 1, a classification that includes HMX, RDX, and PETN -- but only when diluted by 15% water, a condition that clearly does not exist with the crated materials:
So - this orange 1.1 D is the label we would look for on HMX, RDX, or PETN. But did those explosives in these containers have 15 or 25 percent water or other dilution liquid in them? Or did they look pretty dry in that desert?
And as we look at the rest of that chart, we see that a lot of other explosives that fall in the 1.1 D category.
Specifically there are 79 other substances and types of explosive material and supporting equipment that would get the 1.1 D label, including gunpowder, flexible detonating cord, photo-flash bombs, mines, nitroglycerin, rocket warheads, grenades, fuzes, torpedoes and charges. And few of them require any liquid dilution.
Is what’s on this news report video HMX, RDX, or PETN? Possibly, if the material inside is some sort of diluting liquid that we didn’t see on the tape, or if the Iraqis were storing these high-grade explosives in an unsafe manner. Or it could be one of the 79 other substances. Or some containers could have the big three, and some could have others.
But that's not all, either. The ABC report that originally started this meme contains this curious statement:
On the April 2003 visit, our crews witnessed soldiers using bolt cutters to get into bunkers. Inside, they found many containers marked "explosives." At least one set of crates carried the name "Al-Qaqaa State Establishment."
Military personnel told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the area visited was secured by an outside perimeter. Our crew said the area felt more like no-mans-land.
Bottom line? The materials shown in the video could have been any of 80 different materials, with the three from the IAEA actually being among the least likely to have been stored in this manner. The reporters say that the military told them at the time that the area had been secured at an outer perimeter, a sensible approach for a military on a lightning-quick advance. And the Times cannot even verify that the video was taken at the ASP in question.
Another example of brilliant reporting by the Gray Lady ...
RUSSIA MOVED WEAPONS OUT OF IRAQ
According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the U.S. invasion:
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
You get two guesses where the Russians shipped the goods. According to Mr. Shaw:
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
Mr. Gertz further reports that the Iraqis didn't just abandon the site after these shipments. The Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units until the US forces defeated them on or about 3 April.
The Russians weren't just acting as UPS drivers, either.
A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
The Russians didn't just spirit away some weapons haphazardly.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
Mr. Gertz concludes:
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
Right. Sure they will explain. I'll just wait here and report back . . . .
UPDATE: I had forgotten about this. Hat tip: The Corner.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: This story makes the whole missing/partially non-existent explosive story and the Kerry instant talking points (take shoddy reporting and add water) look rather silly. While waiting for the Russians to 'fess up, I'll also be waiting for the MSM to turn its attention to this bombshell. Maybe I should order a pizza . . . might be awhile . . . like 3 November. Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.captainsquartersblog.com
*
GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS CHAMPIONS BUSH
Well, what a treat it is to be in northern Ohio. (Applause.) Indeed, it's an honor to be standing here today with you. You know, I'm not a politician, but I know what a Commander-in-Chief looks like, and there's only one on this ballot -- that's George Bush. (Applause.) You know, I would guess by the enthusiasm that I see represented here today that victory is headed our way in just about five days. (Applause.) If you think about character, if you think about courage, if you think about consistency, if you think about honesty, you think about George W. Bush. (Applause.) If you talk about a leader who knows something about the global war on terrorism, it would be George W. Bush, and he knows it's global. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who knows that terrorism has been more than a nuisance for more than two decades. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who does not want to roll back terrorism to the times of Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in the mid-1990s, East Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in the year 2000, and doesn't want to roll it back to 9/11/01. Terrorism is not a nuisance. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to the United States of America, and removed him from power. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knows that our troops, as of right now, have cleared 10,000 ammunition and weapons sites in Iraq. He knows that they have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. He knows that they have under control -- (applause) -- he knows that they have under control another 162,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We're talking about George W. Bush who knows, who understands that we do not yet have all the facts about 380 tons of munitions in Iraq. And he is a President who will look at you and say, we don't yet have the facts, but we will get the facts. George W. Bush. (Applause.) In George W. Bush, you're talking about a leader who does not step out every day of his life and make more wild accusations. You're talking about a leader who actually cares about our troops, about their families, and about our veterans. You're talking about a leader who actually respects all those who serve our country with dignity and with honor. You're talking about George W. Bush. (Applause.) The past three years have been hard years for America. The past three years have been a tough time for our country. I've looked into the eyes of our President, my Commander-in-Chief, and I have seen that character, that courage, that consistency that I just described. It's the courage that it takes to win a war, not tie one. And we have to win the war against terrorism in this country. (Applause.) Now, I'll tell you, I don't know Senator Kerry's plan for victory. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is, but I do know -- but I do know that his criticism of military conduct of our global war on terrorism denigrates, disrespects our troops. (Applause.) And, ladies and gentlemen, I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the cause. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a close election, and every vote counts. Those who wear the uniform of service of the United States of America deserve a Commander-in-Chief, and it's my honor to introduce one -- President George W. Bush. (Applause.) Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.nationalreview.com/thecorner
*
GERMANY'S LARGEST NEWSPAPER ENDORSES BUSH
Davids Medienkritik reports an encouraging sign of anti-idiotarianism in Germany, as their largest newspaper endorses Bush.
Perhaps the largest October surprise in Germany is the BILD newspaper’s endorsement of President George W. Bush. BILD, which has the widest circulation of any newspaper in Europe, lists the following 10 reasons why Bush should be re-elected:
Update: The list we had up earlier was an abbreviated summary of the 10 reasons. We have now translated BILD’s list of reasons in their entirety. Here they are:
1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.
2. Bush has learned the lessons of history. Military strength, not pleasant talk, is the only thing that helps against violent fanatics. And with Bush — unlike with Kerry — there is no doubt about this.
3. Under Bush, the US, as a superpower, will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism in a “holy war” which Islamic fanatics unilaterally declared. [It’s ultimately about the cash-flow, Damen und Herren. —ed.]
4. Along with fighting terror and the terrorists, a re-elected Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is especially true with regard to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners. But he will not depend on how Syria or Libya vote at the UN.
6. Bush knows that Europe and Germany don’t have the military at their disposal to become involved in any further foreign military engagements. Therefore he won’t ask them for help. Kerry will do exactly that — and will further burden already damaged German-American relations.
7. Under Bush, America will remain a reliable partner for Israel in its fight for survival. That must especially be in our German interest.
8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats. That is also true of Bush when compared to Kerry. And that is good for Germany as an export nation.
9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his. Kerry, on the other hand, has of yet held no (executive) position in the government. He would be worse prepared than most Presidents preceding him.
10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for and where he wants to lead America — and the world. Thursday, October 28, 2004
http://littlegreenfootballs.com
*
To finish reading this weekend's War Blog, click here.
By FrontPage MagazineFrontPageMagazine.com October 29, 2004
THE JOY OF DEFEATISM
We frequently hear leftists compare our military situation in Iraq to that of Vietnam, but John Kerry is unique among lefitsts, I believe, in comparing Iraq to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. He did so today in Toledo, Ohio (not in Florida). The essence of the comparison was that, whereas John Kennedy took responsibility (sort of) for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Bush refuses to "look America in the eye and say to America 'I take responsibility, it is my fault."'
In reality, of course, President Bush has taken responsibility for the war in Iraq. If he hasn't accepted "fault," it may be because, unlike in Cuba, we overthrew the tyrant at issue in one of the most successful operations in military history. And, as Captain Ed points out, even with the difficulties we have faced as we have rebuilt the country and moved Iraq towards democracy, we haven't lost as many men in the nineteen months since our invasion as were killed or captured in a single week at the Bay of Pigs. Iraq will be holding free elections in less than three months. Cuba's have yet to be scheduled.
We have noted before how John Kerry seems to regard Sept. 12, 2001 as a shining moment in American history because much of the world was united in feeling sorry for us. He has now found another high point -- the day that his hero, JFK, took some responsibility for his ignominious failure to keep his promise to support the Cuban ex-pats he sent into battle against Castro. And Kerry apparently remains quite proud of that magic day when he himself took responsibility, before a Senate Committe, for the crimes of the "army of Genghis Khan." One shudders to imagine what great new moments await our country if Kerry becomes president. Quite possibly a Kennedy-style betrayal of the Iraqis, for starters.
Meanwhile, Val Prieto, who has family members who served in Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs invasion, is not amused. He writes: "Like the men of Brigade 2506, the Iraqis are fighting for their freedom. They depend on the strength of not just the US forces serving alongside them, but of the strength and conviction of the one man leading them. John Forbes Kerry is not fit walk amongst these men, much less lead them." Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.powerlineblog.com
*
FROM A SOURCE CLOSE TO THE CAMPAIGN
Jim Geraghty reporting:
Just heard from a source close to the campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels.
According to the Bushies, the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers.
They think Bush is ahead by a few points nationally. They expect the next round of tracking polls to show a bit of a bump.
The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones - Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.
Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup - Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.
An exit poll of those who have already voted show Bush ahead by 15 points! [UPDATE: This is ahead 15 points overall, nationwide, not just in Michigan. Obviously, those who have already voted are only a small, small segment of the electorate at large, so one should not read too much into this number. But it is interesting.]
Undecided voters appear to be breaking Bush’s way - some days he has a slight lead, other days it’s right around 50-50. (Note this would be considerably better than the 1/3 calculated that Bush needs here.
Finally, the ammo dump story appears to have left the Kerry campaign deep in al-Qaqaa.
Tommy Franks is going to enter this story and rip Kerry and the New York Times a new one. The Kerry folks are acting like they realized they have botched this story, and want to shift back to domestic topics. Lockhart, Bill Richardson on Imus — when asked about al-QaQaa, they dodge the question and quickly try to bring up other issues.
The campaign is going to avoid the Russian angle and go with the straightforward, “As the facts mount in this story, American people have a choice between believing Kerry-NYTimes-CBS or believing Bush and the Troops.”
This source close to the campaign didn’t say it, but I wonder if the Bush administration wants to deal with Russia in its own manner, and not have whatever diplomatic confrontations are going on behind the scenes complicated by a furious American electorate blaming Russia for hiding Iraq’s weapons and explosives. Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
*
CIA, FBI AUTHENTICATE NEW AL QAEDA TERROR TAPE; ABCNEWS EXECUTIVES CONSIDER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AIRINGThe CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated a disturbing new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead, a man claims on the video.Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend. The network has withheld airing it, initially citing concerns over its authenticity.One senior federal official alleged ABCNEWS is now holding back from broadcasting any portion of the video out of fear it will be seen as a political move by the network during election week.One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance.""This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained. A second ABC source told DRUDGE Thursday morning: "ABCNEWS has shared this tape with both the CIA and the FBI as part of our reporting process. ABC News is committed to accurate, credible and complete journalism and is applying the same scrutiny to this tape that we apply to all raw information. ABCNEWS continues to report this story aggressively." MORE: The terrorist's face is concealed by a headdress, and he speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual. The tape appears to be from al-Qaeda's media liaison organization. It has a banner crediting the Sahab Production Committee. The speaker refers to Bin Ladin and Zawahiri as "our leaders" and praises the 11 September attacks. Intelligence officials believe: Videotape message likely produced in late summer '04 due to references to current events such as the 9/11 Commission.Individual is college educated, either American born or raised in the U.S.The U.S. is actively seeking to identify the individual. Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman of Southern California - remains the chief candidate but another still unknown individual may be possible.Pearlman was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks. US intelligence officials say the danger is that if this individual is an American citizen, he will be immersed in the culture and customs and have the ability to travel in America freely and unnoticed. Developing... Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.drudgereport.com
*
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING HMX/RDX
ABC News reported late last night that the amount of high-tech explosives at Al Qaqaa has been wildly exaggerated by Iraqi officials, the New York Times, and CBS. Rather than the 380 tons of explosives which cannot be located, new documents put the amount stashed at Al Qaqaa at around 3 tons instead (via Instapundit):
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
This is the type of research that one would have expected from a news organization that considers itself professional -- doing research before reporting on something in order to avoid decontextualizing it, or getting critical facts incorrect. In short, one would expect the geniuses at the Gray Lady to understand the difference between 3 tons and 380 tons, and to get the numbers right before publication.
ABC also reports that the IAEA "seal" hardly guaranteed security on these dangerous weapons at Al Qaqaa:
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
Let me get this straight. The IAEA has screamed that the materials it inspected remained secure under its control until the Americans came bumbling into Iraq. However, their secure environment included holes in the walls covered by easily-removable slats -- and now they wonder how the materials could have possibly disappeared? Who are these people at the IAEA, the Keystone Kops? The most frightening aspect of this story isn't that the terrorists may have had the HMX in their hands for years now. It's that people like Mohammed ElBaradei and his staff have been entrusted with securing nuclear weapons and materials.
If anything, the attempted hit piece on President Bush by the NY Times has turned out to be quite the public service. Thanks to the extraordinarily incompetent misfire by the NYT and CBS, we now see the overwhelming bias of two major news organizations, the desperation and gullibility of John Kerry, and the incredible failure of the UN to provide any kind of security in an age of Islamist terror and state sponsorship.
NY TIMES STILL GETS AL QAQAA WRONG
Our local ABC affiliate ran a videotape purporting to show the existence of HMX, RDX, and PETN at the Al Qaqaa storage facility, and the New York Times ran a new story heralding this videotape as the confirmation it desperately needs to rescue its credibility:
A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The tape, broadcast on Wednesday night by the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, appeared to confirm a warning given earlier this month to the agency by Iraqi officials, who said that hundreds of tons of high-grade explosives, powerful enough to bring down buildings or detonate nuclear weapons, had vanished from the site after the invasion of Iraq.
Well, at least that's the lead in the Times' story. Fifteen paragraphs into the story, the Times finally tells its readers that it cannot even confirm that the video was shot at Al Qaqaa:
The Minneapolis television crew was with an Army unit that was camped near Al Qaqaa, members of the crew said. The reporter and cameraman said that although they were not told specifically that they were being taken to Al Qaqaa by the military, their videotape matches pictures of the site taken by United Nations weapons inspectors, according to weapons experts.
The boxes on the videotape carried markings that say "Al Qaqaa", but take another look at the boxes as shown in the videotape capture here. What do you see? An American soldier prying the crate open. Why would an American soldier pry the box open? Perhaps to check to see what's inside? I don't know what color the sky is in the New York Times' world, but that looks like a search to me.
In fact, that's what the Times' caption states:
A videotape from April 18, 2003, shows a soldier prying open a box in a bunker in Al Qaqaa.
Take a good look at the box itself. How many pounds do you suppose that crate could hold -- maybe 50 pounds, tops? Same with the barrels in this second photograph. At that rate, you'd need 40 crates of this stuff for a single ton of material, and more than 15,000 crates for 380 tons. More likely, these crates contained the vials that the 3ID reported finding at Al Qaqaa, and not the massive amounts of HMX and RDX previously reported by the IAEA to have been stored there.
But the collapse does not end there. The Kerry Spot notices something else about the crates that indicate some other material was contained in them. They're labeled as Explosive 1.1 D 1, a classification that includes HMX, RDX, and PETN -- but only when diluted by 15% water, a condition that clearly does not exist with the crated materials:
So - this orange 1.1 D is the label we would look for on HMX, RDX, or PETN. But did those explosives in these containers have 15 or 25 percent water or other dilution liquid in them? Or did they look pretty dry in that desert?
And as we look at the rest of that chart, we see that a lot of other explosives that fall in the 1.1 D category.
Specifically there are 79 other substances and types of explosive material and supporting equipment that would get the 1.1 D label, including gunpowder, flexible detonating cord, photo-flash bombs, mines, nitroglycerin, rocket warheads, grenades, fuzes, torpedoes and charges. And few of them require any liquid dilution.
Is what’s on this news report video HMX, RDX, or PETN? Possibly, if the material inside is some sort of diluting liquid that we didn’t see on the tape, or if the Iraqis were storing these high-grade explosives in an unsafe manner. Or it could be one of the 79 other substances. Or some containers could have the big three, and some could have others.
But that's not all, either. The ABC report that originally started this meme contains this curious statement:
On the April 2003 visit, our crews witnessed soldiers using bolt cutters to get into bunkers. Inside, they found many containers marked "explosives." At least one set of crates carried the name "Al-Qaqaa State Establishment."
Military personnel told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the area visited was secured by an outside perimeter. Our crew said the area felt more like no-mans-land.
Bottom line? The materials shown in the video could have been any of 80 different materials, with the three from the IAEA actually being among the least likely to have been stored in this manner. The reporters say that the military told them at the time that the area had been secured at an outer perimeter, a sensible approach for a military on a lightning-quick advance. And the Times cannot even verify that the video was taken at the ASP in question.
Another example of brilliant reporting by the Gray Lady ...
RUSSIA MOVED WEAPONS OUT OF IRAQ
According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the U.S. invasion:
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
You get two guesses where the Russians shipped the goods. According to Mr. Shaw:
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
Mr. Gertz further reports that the Iraqis didn't just abandon the site after these shipments. The Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units until the US forces defeated them on or about 3 April.
The Russians weren't just acting as UPS drivers, either.
A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
The Russians didn't just spirit away some weapons haphazardly.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
Mr. Gertz concludes:
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
Right. Sure they will explain. I'll just wait here and report back . . . .
UPDATE: I had forgotten about this. Hat tip: The Corner.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: This story makes the whole missing/partially non-existent explosive story and the Kerry instant talking points (take shoddy reporting and add water) look rather silly. While waiting for the Russians to 'fess up, I'll also be waiting for the MSM to turn its attention to this bombshell. Maybe I should order a pizza . . . might be awhile . . . like 3 November. Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.captainsquartersblog.com
*
GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS CHAMPIONS BUSH
Well, what a treat it is to be in northern Ohio. (Applause.) Indeed, it's an honor to be standing here today with you. You know, I'm not a politician, but I know what a Commander-in-Chief looks like, and there's only one on this ballot -- that's George Bush. (Applause.) You know, I would guess by the enthusiasm that I see represented here today that victory is headed our way in just about five days. (Applause.) If you think about character, if you think about courage, if you think about consistency, if you think about honesty, you think about George W. Bush. (Applause.) If you talk about a leader who knows something about the global war on terrorism, it would be George W. Bush, and he knows it's global. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who knows that terrorism has been more than a nuisance for more than two decades. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who does not want to roll back terrorism to the times of Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in the mid-1990s, East Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in the year 2000, and doesn't want to roll it back to 9/11/01. Terrorism is not a nuisance. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to the United States of America, and removed him from power. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knows that our troops, as of right now, have cleared 10,000 ammunition and weapons sites in Iraq. He knows that they have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. He knows that they have under control -- (applause) -- he knows that they have under control another 162,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We're talking about George W. Bush who knows, who understands that we do not yet have all the facts about 380 tons of munitions in Iraq. And he is a President who will look at you and say, we don't yet have the facts, but we will get the facts. George W. Bush. (Applause.) In George W. Bush, you're talking about a leader who does not step out every day of his life and make more wild accusations. You're talking about a leader who actually cares about our troops, about their families, and about our veterans. You're talking about a leader who actually respects all those who serve our country with dignity and with honor. You're talking about George W. Bush. (Applause.) The past three years have been hard years for America. The past three years have been a tough time for our country. I've looked into the eyes of our President, my Commander-in-Chief, and I have seen that character, that courage, that consistency that I just described. It's the courage that it takes to win a war, not tie one. And we have to win the war against terrorism in this country. (Applause.) Now, I'll tell you, I don't know Senator Kerry's plan for victory. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is, but I do know -- but I do know that his criticism of military conduct of our global war on terrorism denigrates, disrespects our troops. (Applause.) And, ladies and gentlemen, I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the cause. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a close election, and every vote counts. Those who wear the uniform of service of the United States of America deserve a Commander-in-Chief, and it's my honor to introduce one -- President George W. Bush. (Applause.) Thursday, October 28, 2004
www.nationalreview.com/thecorner
*
GERMANY'S LARGEST NEWSPAPER ENDORSES BUSH
Davids Medienkritik reports an encouraging sign of anti-idiotarianism in Germany, as their largest newspaper endorses Bush.
Perhaps the largest October surprise in Germany is the BILD newspaper’s endorsement of President George W. Bush. BILD, which has the widest circulation of any newspaper in Europe, lists the following 10 reasons why Bush should be re-elected:
Update: The list we had up earlier was an abbreviated summary of the 10 reasons. We have now translated BILD’s list of reasons in their entirety. Here they are:
1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.
2. Bush has learned the lessons of history. Military strength, not pleasant talk, is the only thing that helps against violent fanatics. And with Bush — unlike with Kerry — there is no doubt about this.
3. Under Bush, the US, as a superpower, will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism in a “holy war” which Islamic fanatics unilaterally declared. [It’s ultimately about the cash-flow, Damen und Herren. —ed.]
4. Along with fighting terror and the terrorists, a re-elected Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is especially true with regard to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners. But he will not depend on how Syria or Libya vote at the UN.
6. Bush knows that Europe and Germany don’t have the military at their disposal to become involved in any further foreign military engagements. Therefore he won’t ask them for help. Kerry will do exactly that — and will further burden already damaged German-American relations.
7. Under Bush, America will remain a reliable partner for Israel in its fight for survival. That must especially be in our German interest.
8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats. That is also true of Bush when compared to Kerry. And that is good for Germany as an export nation.
9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his. Kerry, on the other hand, has of yet held no (executive) position in the government. He would be worse prepared than most Presidents preceding him.
10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for and where he wants to lead America — and the world. Thursday, October 28, 2004
http://littlegreenfootballs.com
*
To finish reading this weekend's War Blog, click here.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Latino Groups Endorse The President
More bad news for the poodle, especially in the swing states od Arizona, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. - Sailor
Latino Groups Endorse President George W. Bush
NewsMax Wires
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Board of Directors of The Latino Coalition (TLC) and over twenty other Hispanic organizations and heads of organizations from across the country, today announced they will support the reelection of President George W. Bush.
"President Bush knows and understands the Hispanic community better than any other President before him," said TLC Vice Chairman Susan Alvarado. "He has appointed more Hispanics to the highest levels of government than any other President before him. He has taken the lead to address key issues that will improve the lives of Latino families all across the country, such as the No Child Left Behind education reform program, his tax cuts for working families, his proposal to reform our immigration system, his trade agreements within our hemisphere, and his efforts to assist uninsured Hispanic workers get access to affordable health insurance. But above all, he has been a strong and decisive leader on making sure that America is safe and secure, and that we win the war on terrorism."
Story Continues Below
On the other hand, the TLC Board cited the unimpressive and lackluster record of Senator John Kerry. "Throughout his career in the United States Senate, John Kerry has all but ignored the Latino community," said TLC President Robert Deposada. "In 20 years as a Senator, Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation to reform our immigration system, or to reform education, or to help uninsured workers get access to affordable health insurance. Also, he has been as inconsistent with his policies on trade with Latin America or on Castro's Cuba, as he has been with the War in Iraq. Clearly, this man does not have the decisiveness and the vision we need in a President, particularly at a time of war."
"His record in the U.S. Senate is so unimpressive on issues affecting Latinos, that a large number of Hispanic registered Democrats are crossing party lines to support President George W. Bush," Deposada added. "His many empty promises in the midst of a political campaign are falling on deaf ears, simply because he doesn't have the credibility in our community. We have yet to find a single high-level Hispanic appointment during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate or while he served as Massachusetts Lt. Governor. So when he talks about looking out for our community, most people realize that he cannot be effective, simply because he doesn't know or understand us."
Over 20 Hispanic organizations and the leaders of many organizations joined The Latino Coalition in endorsing the reelection of President Bush.
"In 2000, I voted for Al Gore for President. I am a registered Democrat and was not a fan of George W. Bush," said Hispanic Business Roundtable Board Member Elizabeth Fernandez, a registered Democrat in Fairfax, Virginia. "But after 9-11, as a mother of two girls, I began to admire the man. He is clearly a man of conviction, a strong and decisive leader and a man who I know will keep America, and therefore my family, safe and secure."
"I am the perfect example of the security mom. While I might not agree with him on all issues, I do believe that the security of our country against terrorist has to be our number one priority," Mrs. Fernandez added. "Domestic issues are secondary to our national security, simply because we witnessed first hand that another large scale attack on our country, could be devastating to our economy and all other appropriation spending on new domestic programs. This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President. But I do it because the security of my family and my country, is far more important than party labels."
"As a registered Democrat and an immigration attorney, I was looking forward to supporting my party's nominee to promote an agenda to help our community. But after a careful look at Senator Kerry's record, I cannot support his candidacy," said National Hispanic Restaurant Association Board Member Manuel Solis, of Houston, Texas and owner of the largest immigration law firm in the U.S. "In 20 years in the U.S. Senate, John Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored a single immigration reform bill. If he ignored our community for 20 years, why should we believe his empty promises in the middle of a political campaign? This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President, because I am convinced that George Bush knows our community and had the courage to address the immigration issue and propose a common sense approach to help the most vulnerable in our community."
"John Kerry says that he represents Hispanic values, but his record shows the opposite," said Rev. Arturo Soto, President of the Hispanic Clergy Association of New Jersey. "The Hispanic values are based on the strength of our families, and John Kerry's record in the U.S. Senate has not been pro-family. He has consistently voted against requiring that parents be notified before their teenage daughters have an abortion. He was one of the only 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, which defined marriage as only the union between a man and a woman. He opposed giving parents the choice to select the best school for their children and voted against tax relief for married couples with underage children. This is not the record of a politician that represents Hispanic values."
"We need a President who understands and knows the Hispanic community and particularly our business community," said Julio Gudino, a registered Democrat and business owner in Norwalk, California and member of the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Business Roundtable. "Senator Kerry has ignored our community for 20 years in the United States Senate, so why should we believe his promises now? His record on issues affecting the Hispanic community is very disappointing. This will be the first time in my life that I will vote for a Republican candidate for President, simply because I have seen Kerry's record, and I simply cannot support him."
"As first responders, we have seen first hand the leadership and commitment of President Bush," said Ed Davis, President of the National Association of Hispanic Firefighters. "President Bush has been there every step of the way for our Hispanic firefighters throughout the country. While we have not always seen eye to eye, he reached out to us. He knows and understands the Hispanic community and has been our friend. He deserves our support."
"If you're in the military, you want a Commander in Chief who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and fulfill the commitment to our men and women in the armed forces," said Bob Archuleta, Los Angeles County Commissioner for Military and Veteran Affairs and a member of the National Latino Peace Officers Association. "In President Bush we have a Commander in Chief who knows what he believes in and knows what he stands for. We as veterans and those currently serving in our armed forces feel that our nation is behind us and have a President that will not let us down."
"The last thing that our men and women in the field need, particularly those who face danger every day, is a Commander in Chief that will change his mind every time the going gets rough," Archuleta added. "We need steady leadership, and when I speak to many of my veteran colleagues, who like me are registered Democrats, we all agree that we can't gamble with the unknown. And the message that comes across from Senator Kerry and his advisors is one of appeasement and indecisiveness. At a time of war, this is not the type of leadership we need. And that's why like me, many Hispanic American Democrats are supporting President Bush."
(U.S. Newswires)
Latino Groups Endorse President George W. Bush
NewsMax Wires
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Board of Directors of The Latino Coalition (TLC) and over twenty other Hispanic organizations and heads of organizations from across the country, today announced they will support the reelection of President George W. Bush.
"President Bush knows and understands the Hispanic community better than any other President before him," said TLC Vice Chairman Susan Alvarado. "He has appointed more Hispanics to the highest levels of government than any other President before him. He has taken the lead to address key issues that will improve the lives of Latino families all across the country, such as the No Child Left Behind education reform program, his tax cuts for working families, his proposal to reform our immigration system, his trade agreements within our hemisphere, and his efforts to assist uninsured Hispanic workers get access to affordable health insurance. But above all, he has been a strong and decisive leader on making sure that America is safe and secure, and that we win the war on terrorism."
Story Continues Below
On the other hand, the TLC Board cited the unimpressive and lackluster record of Senator John Kerry. "Throughout his career in the United States Senate, John Kerry has all but ignored the Latino community," said TLC President Robert Deposada. "In 20 years as a Senator, Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation to reform our immigration system, or to reform education, or to help uninsured workers get access to affordable health insurance. Also, he has been as inconsistent with his policies on trade with Latin America or on Castro's Cuba, as he has been with the War in Iraq. Clearly, this man does not have the decisiveness and the vision we need in a President, particularly at a time of war."
"His record in the U.S. Senate is so unimpressive on issues affecting Latinos, that a large number of Hispanic registered Democrats are crossing party lines to support President George W. Bush," Deposada added. "His many empty promises in the midst of a political campaign are falling on deaf ears, simply because he doesn't have the credibility in our community. We have yet to find a single high-level Hispanic appointment during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate or while he served as Massachusetts Lt. Governor. So when he talks about looking out for our community, most people realize that he cannot be effective, simply because he doesn't know or understand us."
Over 20 Hispanic organizations and the leaders of many organizations joined The Latino Coalition in endorsing the reelection of President Bush.
"In 2000, I voted for Al Gore for President. I am a registered Democrat and was not a fan of George W. Bush," said Hispanic Business Roundtable Board Member Elizabeth Fernandez, a registered Democrat in Fairfax, Virginia. "But after 9-11, as a mother of two girls, I began to admire the man. He is clearly a man of conviction, a strong and decisive leader and a man who I know will keep America, and therefore my family, safe and secure."
"I am the perfect example of the security mom. While I might not agree with him on all issues, I do believe that the security of our country against terrorist has to be our number one priority," Mrs. Fernandez added. "Domestic issues are secondary to our national security, simply because we witnessed first hand that another large scale attack on our country, could be devastating to our economy and all other appropriation spending on new domestic programs. This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President. But I do it because the security of my family and my country, is far more important than party labels."
"As a registered Democrat and an immigration attorney, I was looking forward to supporting my party's nominee to promote an agenda to help our community. But after a careful look at Senator Kerry's record, I cannot support his candidacy," said National Hispanic Restaurant Association Board Member Manuel Solis, of Houston, Texas and owner of the largest immigration law firm in the U.S. "In 20 years in the U.S. Senate, John Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored a single immigration reform bill. If he ignored our community for 20 years, why should we believe his empty promises in the middle of a political campaign? This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President, because I am convinced that George Bush knows our community and had the courage to address the immigration issue and propose a common sense approach to help the most vulnerable in our community."
"John Kerry says that he represents Hispanic values, but his record shows the opposite," said Rev. Arturo Soto, President of the Hispanic Clergy Association of New Jersey. "The Hispanic values are based on the strength of our families, and John Kerry's record in the U.S. Senate has not been pro-family. He has consistently voted against requiring that parents be notified before their teenage daughters have an abortion. He was one of the only 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, which defined marriage as only the union between a man and a woman. He opposed giving parents the choice to select the best school for their children and voted against tax relief for married couples with underage children. This is not the record of a politician that represents Hispanic values."
"We need a President who understands and knows the Hispanic community and particularly our business community," said Julio Gudino, a registered Democrat and business owner in Norwalk, California and member of the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Business Roundtable. "Senator Kerry has ignored our community for 20 years in the United States Senate, so why should we believe his promises now? His record on issues affecting the Hispanic community is very disappointing. This will be the first time in my life that I will vote for a Republican candidate for President, simply because I have seen Kerry's record, and I simply cannot support him."
"As first responders, we have seen first hand the leadership and commitment of President Bush," said Ed Davis, President of the National Association of Hispanic Firefighters. "President Bush has been there every step of the way for our Hispanic firefighters throughout the country. While we have not always seen eye to eye, he reached out to us. He knows and understands the Hispanic community and has been our friend. He deserves our support."
"If you're in the military, you want a Commander in Chief who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and fulfill the commitment to our men and women in the armed forces," said Bob Archuleta, Los Angeles County Commissioner for Military and Veteran Affairs and a member of the National Latino Peace Officers Association. "In President Bush we have a Commander in Chief who knows what he believes in and knows what he stands for. We as veterans and those currently serving in our armed forces feel that our nation is behind us and have a President that will not let us down."
"The last thing that our men and women in the field need, particularly those who face danger every day, is a Commander in Chief that will change his mind every time the going gets rough," Archuleta added. "We need steady leadership, and when I speak to many of my veteran colleagues, who like me are registered Democrats, we all agree that we can't gamble with the unknown. And the message that comes across from Senator Kerry and his advisors is one of appeasement and indecisiveness. At a time of war, this is not the type of leadership we need. And that's why like me, many Hispanic American Democrats are supporting President Bush."
(U.S. Newswires)
Latino Groups Endorse The President
More bad news for the poodle, especially in the swing states od Arizone, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. - Sailor
Latino Groups Endorse President George W. Bush
NewsMax Wires
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Board of Directors of The Latino Coalition (TLC) and over twenty other Hispanic organizations and heads of organizations from across the country, today announced they will support the reelection of President George W. Bush.
"President Bush knows and understands the Hispanic community better than any other President before him," said TLC Vice Chairman Susan Alvarado. "He has appointed more Hispanics to the highest levels of government than any other President before him. He has taken the lead to address key issues that will improve the lives of Latino families all across the country, such as the No Child Left Behind education reform program, his tax cuts for working families, his proposal to reform our immigration system, his trade agreements within our hemisphere, and his efforts to assist uninsured Hispanic workers get access to affordable health insurance. But above all, he has been a strong and decisive leader on making sure that America is safe and secure, and that we win the war on terrorism."
Story Continues Below
On the other hand, the TLC Board cited the unimpressive and lackluster record of Senator John Kerry. "Throughout his career in the United States Senate, John Kerry has all but ignored the Latino community," said TLC President Robert Deposada. "In 20 years as a Senator, Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation to reform our immigration system, or to reform education, or to help uninsured workers get access to affordable health insurance. Also, he has been as inconsistent with his policies on trade with Latin America or on Castro's Cuba, as he has been with the War in Iraq. Clearly, this man does not have the decisiveness and the vision we need in a President, particularly at a time of war."
"His record in the U.S. Senate is so unimpressive on issues affecting Latinos, that a large number of Hispanic registered Democrats are crossing party lines to support President George W. Bush," Deposada added. "His many empty promises in the midst of a political campaign are falling on deaf ears, simply because he doesn't have the credibility in our community. We have yet to find a single high-level Hispanic appointment during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate or while he served as Massachusetts Lt. Governor. So when he talks about looking out for our community, most people realize that he cannot be effective, simply because he doesn't know or understand us."
Over 20 Hispanic organizations and the leaders of many organizations joined The Latino Coalition in endorsing the reelection of President Bush.
"In 2000, I voted for Al Gore for President. I am a registered Democrat and was not a fan of George W. Bush," said Hispanic Business Roundtable Board Member Elizabeth Fernandez, a registered Democrat in Fairfax, Virginia. "But after 9-11, as a mother of two girls, I began to admire the man. He is clearly a man of conviction, a strong and decisive leader and a man who I know will keep America, and therefore my family, safe and secure."
"I am the perfect example of the security mom. While I might not agree with him on all issues, I do believe that the security of our country against terrorist has to be our number one priority," Mrs. Fernandez added. "Domestic issues are secondary to our national security, simply because we witnessed first hand that another large scale attack on our country, could be devastating to our economy and all other appropriation spending on new domestic programs. This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President. But I do it because the security of my family and my country, is far more important than party labels."
"As a registered Democrat and an immigration attorney, I was looking forward to supporting my party's nominee to promote an agenda to help our community. But after a careful look at Senator Kerry's record, I cannot support his candidacy," said National Hispanic Restaurant Association Board Member Manuel Solis, of Houston, Texas and owner of the largest immigration law firm in the U.S. "In 20 years in the U.S. Senate, John Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored a single immigration reform bill. If he ignored our community for 20 years, why should we believe his empty promises in the middle of a political campaign? This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President, because I am convinced that George Bush knows our community and had the courage to address the immigration issue and propose a common sense approach to help the most vulnerable in our community."
"John Kerry says that he represents Hispanic values, but his record shows the opposite," said Rev. Arturo Soto, President of the Hispanic Clergy Association of New Jersey. "The Hispanic values are based on the strength of our families, and John Kerry's record in the U.S. Senate has not been pro-family. He has consistently voted against requiring that parents be notified before their teenage daughters have an abortion. He was one of the only 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, which defined marriage as only the union between a man and a woman. He opposed giving parents the choice to select the best school for their children and voted against tax relief for married couples with underage children. This is not the record of a politician that represents Hispanic values."
"We need a President who understands and knows the Hispanic community and particularly our business community," said Julio Gudino, a registered Democrat and business owner in Norwalk, California and member of the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Business Roundtable. "Senator Kerry has ignored our community for 20 years in the United States Senate, so why should we believe his promises now? His record on issues affecting the Hispanic community is very disappointing. This will be the first time in my life that I will vote for a Republican candidate for President, simply because I have seen Kerry's record, and I simply cannot support him."
"As first responders, we have seen first hand the leadership and commitment of President Bush," said Ed Davis, President of the National Association of Hispanic Firefighters. "President Bush has been there every step of the way for our Hispanic firefighters throughout the country. While we have not always seen eye to eye, he reached out to us. He knows and understands the Hispanic community and has been our friend. He deserves our support."
"If you're in the military, you want a Commander in Chief who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and fulfill the commitment to our men and women in the armed forces," said Bob Archuleta, Los Angeles County Commissioner for Military and Veteran Affairs and a member of the National Latino Peace Officers Association. "In President Bush we have a Commander in Chief who knows what he believes in and knows what he stands for. We as veterans and those currently serving in our armed forces feel that our nation is behind us and have a President that will not let us down."
"The last thing that our men and women in the field need, particularly those who face danger every day, is a Commander in Chief that will change his mind every time the going gets rough," Archuleta added. "We need steady leadership, and when I speak to many of my veteran colleagues, who like me are registered Democrats, we all agree that we can't gamble with the unknown. And the message that comes across from Senator Kerry and his advisors is one of appeasement and indecisiveness. At a time of war, this is not the type of leadership we need. And that's why like me, many Hispanic American Democrats are supporting President Bush."
(U.S. Newswires)
Latino Groups Endorse President George W. Bush
NewsMax Wires
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Board of Directors of The Latino Coalition (TLC) and over twenty other Hispanic organizations and heads of organizations from across the country, today announced they will support the reelection of President George W. Bush.
"President Bush knows and understands the Hispanic community better than any other President before him," said TLC Vice Chairman Susan Alvarado. "He has appointed more Hispanics to the highest levels of government than any other President before him. He has taken the lead to address key issues that will improve the lives of Latino families all across the country, such as the No Child Left Behind education reform program, his tax cuts for working families, his proposal to reform our immigration system, his trade agreements within our hemisphere, and his efforts to assist uninsured Hispanic workers get access to affordable health insurance. But above all, he has been a strong and decisive leader on making sure that America is safe and secure, and that we win the war on terrorism."
Story Continues Below
On the other hand, the TLC Board cited the unimpressive and lackluster record of Senator John Kerry. "Throughout his career in the United States Senate, John Kerry has all but ignored the Latino community," said TLC President Robert Deposada. "In 20 years as a Senator, Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation to reform our immigration system, or to reform education, or to help uninsured workers get access to affordable health insurance. Also, he has been as inconsistent with his policies on trade with Latin America or on Castro's Cuba, as he has been with the War in Iraq. Clearly, this man does not have the decisiveness and the vision we need in a President, particularly at a time of war."
"His record in the U.S. Senate is so unimpressive on issues affecting Latinos, that a large number of Hispanic registered Democrats are crossing party lines to support President George W. Bush," Deposada added. "His many empty promises in the midst of a political campaign are falling on deaf ears, simply because he doesn't have the credibility in our community. We have yet to find a single high-level Hispanic appointment during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate or while he served as Massachusetts Lt. Governor. So when he talks about looking out for our community, most people realize that he cannot be effective, simply because he doesn't know or understand us."
Over 20 Hispanic organizations and the leaders of many organizations joined The Latino Coalition in endorsing the reelection of President Bush.
"In 2000, I voted for Al Gore for President. I am a registered Democrat and was not a fan of George W. Bush," said Hispanic Business Roundtable Board Member Elizabeth Fernandez, a registered Democrat in Fairfax, Virginia. "But after 9-11, as a mother of two girls, I began to admire the man. He is clearly a man of conviction, a strong and decisive leader and a man who I know will keep America, and therefore my family, safe and secure."
"I am the perfect example of the security mom. While I might not agree with him on all issues, I do believe that the security of our country against terrorist has to be our number one priority," Mrs. Fernandez added. "Domestic issues are secondary to our national security, simply because we witnessed first hand that another large scale attack on our country, could be devastating to our economy and all other appropriation spending on new domestic programs. This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President. But I do it because the security of my family and my country, is far more important than party labels."
"As a registered Democrat and an immigration attorney, I was looking forward to supporting my party's nominee to promote an agenda to help our community. But after a careful look at Senator Kerry's record, I cannot support his candidacy," said National Hispanic Restaurant Association Board Member Manuel Solis, of Houston, Texas and owner of the largest immigration law firm in the U.S. "In 20 years in the U.S. Senate, John Kerry has not sponsored or co-sponsored a single immigration reform bill. If he ignored our community for 20 years, why should we believe his empty promises in the middle of a political campaign? This will be the first time I vote for a Republican candidate for President, because I am convinced that George Bush knows our community and had the courage to address the immigration issue and propose a common sense approach to help the most vulnerable in our community."
"John Kerry says that he represents Hispanic values, but his record shows the opposite," said Rev. Arturo Soto, President of the Hispanic Clergy Association of New Jersey. "The Hispanic values are based on the strength of our families, and John Kerry's record in the U.S. Senate has not been pro-family. He has consistently voted against requiring that parents be notified before their teenage daughters have an abortion. He was one of the only 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, which defined marriage as only the union between a man and a woman. He opposed giving parents the choice to select the best school for their children and voted against tax relief for married couples with underage children. This is not the record of a politician that represents Hispanic values."
"We need a President who understands and knows the Hispanic community and particularly our business community," said Julio Gudino, a registered Democrat and business owner in Norwalk, California and member of the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Business Roundtable. "Senator Kerry has ignored our community for 20 years in the United States Senate, so why should we believe his promises now? His record on issues affecting the Hispanic community is very disappointing. This will be the first time in my life that I will vote for a Republican candidate for President, simply because I have seen Kerry's record, and I simply cannot support him."
"As first responders, we have seen first hand the leadership and commitment of President Bush," said Ed Davis, President of the National Association of Hispanic Firefighters. "President Bush has been there every step of the way for our Hispanic firefighters throughout the country. While we have not always seen eye to eye, he reached out to us. He knows and understands the Hispanic community and has been our friend. He deserves our support."
"If you're in the military, you want a Commander in Chief who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and fulfill the commitment to our men and women in the armed forces," said Bob Archuleta, Los Angeles County Commissioner for Military and Veteran Affairs and a member of the National Latino Peace Officers Association. "In President Bush we have a Commander in Chief who knows what he believes in and knows what he stands for. We as veterans and those currently serving in our armed forces feel that our nation is behind us and have a President that will not let us down."
"The last thing that our men and women in the field need, particularly those who face danger every day, is a Commander in Chief that will change his mind every time the going gets rough," Archuleta added. "We need steady leadership, and when I speak to many of my veteran colleagues, who like me are registered Democrats, we all agree that we can't gamble with the unknown. And the message that comes across from Senator Kerry and his advisors is one of appeasement and indecisiveness. At a time of war, this is not the type of leadership we need. And that's why like me, many Hispanic American Democrats are supporting President Bush."
(U.S. Newswires)
A Civilian Held in Vietnam as a POW Speaks Out Against Kerry
Another timely bit of informations from Doc Farmer. Do pass this around to all of your friends and family. John Kerry should never ever be in a position of leadeship of any kind. - Sailor
October 24, 2004
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Here is another outstanding message with more facts about what took place during the Vietnam war and John Kerry's role in it. The message comes from a conservative friend Lt. Col. Donald "Ed" Cathcart (Mofak), USMC, Retired. In talking about the author of the letter to follow, Colonel Cathcart says:
"Mike Benge is a Patriot, a civilian Warrior, a courageous defender of freedom and a former POW [5 years] in North Vietnam. He is my Friend and I enthusiastically endorse his letter in its entirety.
God Bless you Mike and thank you for steadfastly advocating for the human rights and welfare of the Vietnamese people, the Montagnards and all other indigenous people of Southeast Asia."
**********************
[permission as been granted to post the letter by Colonel Cathcart in behalf of his friend Mike Benge---he encourages duplicating the message and sending it on to others. The letter has been authenticated]
Jack L. Patterson
U.S. Air Force veteran
e-mail: jackandchris@cox-internet.com
*****************************************************
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Mike Benge, VN POW 1968-73 --- Open Anti Kerry Letter
Open letter to Vietnamese-Americans, Vietnam and other Veterans concerning the upcoming elections.
From Mike Benge Former VN POW, '68-73
Many people including Vietnamese-Americans, Vietnam and other Veterans and others, especially the younger generation, know very little about the Vietnam War. Even the Vietnam Veterans by and large knew little more than a microcosm of what was going on other than their little part of "Hell."
Almost everyone has seen the picture of the South Vietnamese General summarily executing a Viet Cong, but they were never told that this VC was part of a special assassination unit that had just finished cutting off the legs of the dependent's wives and children, in the police barracks down the street, and who smeared on the wall in blood: "This is what happens to American imperialist collaborators."
All too many know little more than what they may have seen mis-portrayed in movies such as "Apocalypse Now" or editorialized in TV portrayals or books, even school text books, that are often more fiction than fact.
Few know the real Senator John Kerry who is aspiring to be President.
During the Easter Campaign in 1972, after American combat troops had pulled out of Vietnam, the Army of South Vietnam fought gallantly against the North Vietnamese communist army, defeating them in battle, and driving them in defeat back to North Vietnam and their sanctuaries in Laos.
However, because of John Kerry's appalling testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 in which he falsely charged that all U.S. troops in Vietnam were war criminals, Senator Ted Kennedy was able to persuade the Senate to cut off all future funding for Vietnam. Therefore, there was no money to purchase ammunition, bombs or parts to repair any equipment necessary to continue the war and ward off the North Vietnamese army that led to the fall of Vietnam to the communists in 1975.
Kerry was spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and largely based his testimony on fabrications by VVAW members who had either not been in the military, or if they had been, they had not been in Vietnam, or if they had been in Vietnam had never been in combat.
John Kerry also stated that the Vietnamese people didn't care if they lived under democracy or communism, and they would probably be better off under communism. He went on to say that if the communists took over Vietnam, at most, only a few hundred South Vietnamese would be killed.
The North Vietnamese communist government (NVG) signed the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoners of War in 1957, yet it grossly violated all provisions of the Convention by starving, torturing and murdering not only American military POWs, but civilians as well.
The communists also committed the same atrocities against thousands of South Vietnamese POWs, as well as any third-country allies who happened to fall in their clutches. [I know this from first hand experience having been a civilian POW of Hanoi for 5 years, including spending time in "tiger cages" and in their less than luxurious prisons in Hanoi including Hoa Lo prison - the Hole of Fire, aka the Hanoi Hilton.]
When the communist North Vietnamese retreated after being defeated in the battle for Hue that ended Feb. 24, 1968, they took with them over 3,500 South Vietnamese POWs, soldiers, civil servants as well as their wives and children, including three German Doctors working at the University of Hue.
All were systematically murdered and buried - 20 to 40 bodies to a grave. The bodies showed clear evidence of atrocity killings: groups of bodies tied together, each with hands wired or tied with bamboo strips behind backs, rags stuffed in mouths or plastic bags tied over their heads, with many of the bodies contorted but without wounds (indicating being buried alive).
Right after my capture during the TET Offensive in 1968, North Vietnamese officers, in order to impress me of their seriousness, staged a "kangaroo court," a mock trial, in a leper colony, where they had 15 Montagnard ethnic minority teenagers with their hands wired behind them, kneeling on a bamboo platform, accusing them of being counter-revolutionaries.
Communist cadres were dispersed among the lepers and when asked by the officer staging the trial what should be done with them, the cadre began shouting, "Kill them! Kill them!" The lepers afraid for their lives were urged by the cadres to join in the condemnation, a freak-out show that would make Francis Ford Coppula proud - then a NVA officer walked up behind them, executing a coup de grace, shooting each teenager in the back of the head.
Probably less than 100 people remember, and less than a dozen saw the pictures of, what happened when the North Vietnamese soldiers overran a Stieng ethnic minority village in Tay Ninh Province in 1967 and systematically fried the men, women, children and babes in arms with flame throwers -- turning the entire village into charred corpses.
Apparently the North Vietnamese atrocities made no impact on the mind or conscience of Senator John Kerry, for he made no agonized outcry. He never led demonstrations at North Vietnamese embassies or consulates. No, instead, John Kerry led demonstrations in Washington, DC, marching under the Viet Cong flag, and regurgitated falsehoods before the Senate Foreign Relations, and betrayed his "band of brothers" calling them all "war criminals." And John Kerry dishonored those dead Americans whose names are on that cold black granite wall in Washington, DC - The Vietnam Memorial - who died fighting for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people.
John Kerry testified that American Servicemen in Vietnam committed atrocities, reminiscent of Genghis Khan, and the acts were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Who Kerry was describing was the Vietnamese communists, not American soldiers. On April 18, 1971, Kerry appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" stating "Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities…" Whether this was a mea culpa by Kerry, only he knows.
Instead of punishment for war crimes, through the intense advocacy efforts of presidential hopeful John Kerry, the communist killers and torturers were rewarded with favorable diplomatic and trade relations that have allowed them to line their pockets with gold and fatten their offshore bank accounts from ill-gotten gains.
As a Senator, John Kerry has fought harder for the Vietnamese communists since his return than he ever did against them during his short four months in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander.
In 2001, Kerry single-handed prevented the Vietnam Human Rights Act from going to the floor of the Senate for a democratic up or down vote after passing the House 410-1.
John Kerry gave aid-and-comfort to the enemy, and his actions after coming back from Vietnam prolonged the war instead of shortening it, causing the unnecessary deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese and 3 million Cambodians, and hundreds of thousands Laotians.
General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general, the architect of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975, is cited as crediting Presidential aspirant John Kerry and his VVAW with helping them achieve victory.
In Giap's 1985 memoir about the war, he wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S." Giap was quoted as saying, "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"
John Kerry's picture hangs in the Vietnamese communist's war museum (formerly called the War Crimes Museum) in Saigon (now called Ho Chi Minh City), in which he is immortalized in tribute to aiding the communists in winning the war.
America went to war in Vietnam for the right reasons, fighting for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people and history has proven this fact. However, because of the likes of John Kerry, the United States abandoned the Vietnamese people to the brutal fascist Vietnamese communists.
In his campaign, John Forbes Kerry heralds his military record as a badge of honor in his campaign; only after coming home, he desecrated it -- That's not what a hero does. John Forbes Kerry does not deserve the respect of Veterans, nor their vote, or the vote of Vietnamese Americans who value honor over deceit. Don't let the United States once again betray the Vietnamese people by electing John Kerry as President.
by Michel D. Benge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
forwarded by:
Mofak
Fallujah Delenda Est
Marine Fighter Pilot for Bush
Back to Back We Face the Past
http://www.mofak.com/
*****************
To read a comprehensive BIO on Michael D. Benge, connect to:
http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/b/b600.htm
Other references to Mike Benge can be found through a standard internet web search.
PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO OTHERS - THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE CONSTANTLY REPEATED
October 24, 2004
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Here is another outstanding message with more facts about what took place during the Vietnam war and John Kerry's role in it. The message comes from a conservative friend Lt. Col. Donald "Ed" Cathcart (Mofak), USMC, Retired. In talking about the author of the letter to follow, Colonel Cathcart says:
"Mike Benge is a Patriot, a civilian Warrior, a courageous defender of freedom and a former POW [5 years] in North Vietnam. He is my Friend and I enthusiastically endorse his letter in its entirety.
God Bless you Mike and thank you for steadfastly advocating for the human rights and welfare of the Vietnamese people, the Montagnards and all other indigenous people of Southeast Asia."
**********************
[permission as been granted to post the letter by Colonel Cathcart in behalf of his friend Mike Benge---he encourages duplicating the message and sending it on to others. The letter has been authenticated]
Jack L. Patterson
U.S. Air Force veteran
e-mail: jackandchris@cox-internet.com
*****************************************************
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Mike Benge, VN POW 1968-73 --- Open Anti Kerry Letter
Open letter to Vietnamese-Americans, Vietnam and other Veterans concerning the upcoming elections.
From Mike Benge Former VN POW, '68-73
Many people including Vietnamese-Americans, Vietnam and other Veterans and others, especially the younger generation, know very little about the Vietnam War. Even the Vietnam Veterans by and large knew little more than a microcosm of what was going on other than their little part of "Hell."
Almost everyone has seen the picture of the South Vietnamese General summarily executing a Viet Cong, but they were never told that this VC was part of a special assassination unit that had just finished cutting off the legs of the dependent's wives and children, in the police barracks down the street, and who smeared on the wall in blood: "This is what happens to American imperialist collaborators."
All too many know little more than what they may have seen mis-portrayed in movies such as "Apocalypse Now" or editorialized in TV portrayals or books, even school text books, that are often more fiction than fact.
Few know the real Senator John Kerry who is aspiring to be President.
During the Easter Campaign in 1972, after American combat troops had pulled out of Vietnam, the Army of South Vietnam fought gallantly against the North Vietnamese communist army, defeating them in battle, and driving them in defeat back to North Vietnam and their sanctuaries in Laos.
However, because of John Kerry's appalling testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 in which he falsely charged that all U.S. troops in Vietnam were war criminals, Senator Ted Kennedy was able to persuade the Senate to cut off all future funding for Vietnam. Therefore, there was no money to purchase ammunition, bombs or parts to repair any equipment necessary to continue the war and ward off the North Vietnamese army that led to the fall of Vietnam to the communists in 1975.
Kerry was spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and largely based his testimony on fabrications by VVAW members who had either not been in the military, or if they had been, they had not been in Vietnam, or if they had been in Vietnam had never been in combat.
John Kerry also stated that the Vietnamese people didn't care if they lived under democracy or communism, and they would probably be better off under communism. He went on to say that if the communists took over Vietnam, at most, only a few hundred South Vietnamese would be killed.
The North Vietnamese communist government (NVG) signed the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoners of War in 1957, yet it grossly violated all provisions of the Convention by starving, torturing and murdering not only American military POWs, but civilians as well.
The communists also committed the same atrocities against thousands of South Vietnamese POWs, as well as any third-country allies who happened to fall in their clutches. [I know this from first hand experience having been a civilian POW of Hanoi for 5 years, including spending time in "tiger cages" and in their less than luxurious prisons in Hanoi including Hoa Lo prison - the Hole of Fire, aka the Hanoi Hilton.]
When the communist North Vietnamese retreated after being defeated in the battle for Hue that ended Feb. 24, 1968, they took with them over 3,500 South Vietnamese POWs, soldiers, civil servants as well as their wives and children, including three German Doctors working at the University of Hue.
All were systematically murdered and buried - 20 to 40 bodies to a grave. The bodies showed clear evidence of atrocity killings: groups of bodies tied together, each with hands wired or tied with bamboo strips behind backs, rags stuffed in mouths or plastic bags tied over their heads, with many of the bodies contorted but without wounds (indicating being buried alive).
Right after my capture during the TET Offensive in 1968, North Vietnamese officers, in order to impress me of their seriousness, staged a "kangaroo court," a mock trial, in a leper colony, where they had 15 Montagnard ethnic minority teenagers with their hands wired behind them, kneeling on a bamboo platform, accusing them of being counter-revolutionaries.
Communist cadres were dispersed among the lepers and when asked by the officer staging the trial what should be done with them, the cadre began shouting, "Kill them! Kill them!" The lepers afraid for their lives were urged by the cadres to join in the condemnation, a freak-out show that would make Francis Ford Coppula proud - then a NVA officer walked up behind them, executing a coup de grace, shooting each teenager in the back of the head.
Probably less than 100 people remember, and less than a dozen saw the pictures of, what happened when the North Vietnamese soldiers overran a Stieng ethnic minority village in Tay Ninh Province in 1967 and systematically fried the men, women, children and babes in arms with flame throwers -- turning the entire village into charred corpses.
Apparently the North Vietnamese atrocities made no impact on the mind or conscience of Senator John Kerry, for he made no agonized outcry. He never led demonstrations at North Vietnamese embassies or consulates. No, instead, John Kerry led demonstrations in Washington, DC, marching under the Viet Cong flag, and regurgitated falsehoods before the Senate Foreign Relations, and betrayed his "band of brothers" calling them all "war criminals." And John Kerry dishonored those dead Americans whose names are on that cold black granite wall in Washington, DC - The Vietnam Memorial - who died fighting for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people.
John Kerry testified that American Servicemen in Vietnam committed atrocities, reminiscent of Genghis Khan, and the acts were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Who Kerry was describing was the Vietnamese communists, not American soldiers. On April 18, 1971, Kerry appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" stating "Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities…" Whether this was a mea culpa by Kerry, only he knows.
Instead of punishment for war crimes, through the intense advocacy efforts of presidential hopeful John Kerry, the communist killers and torturers were rewarded with favorable diplomatic and trade relations that have allowed them to line their pockets with gold and fatten their offshore bank accounts from ill-gotten gains.
As a Senator, John Kerry has fought harder for the Vietnamese communists since his return than he ever did against them during his short four months in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander.
In 2001, Kerry single-handed prevented the Vietnam Human Rights Act from going to the floor of the Senate for a democratic up or down vote after passing the House 410-1.
John Kerry gave aid-and-comfort to the enemy, and his actions after coming back from Vietnam prolonged the war instead of shortening it, causing the unnecessary deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese and 3 million Cambodians, and hundreds of thousands Laotians.
General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general, the architect of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975, is cited as crediting Presidential aspirant John Kerry and his VVAW with helping them achieve victory.
In Giap's 1985 memoir about the war, he wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S." Giap was quoted as saying, "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"
John Kerry's picture hangs in the Vietnamese communist's war museum (formerly called the War Crimes Museum) in Saigon (now called Ho Chi Minh City), in which he is immortalized in tribute to aiding the communists in winning the war.
America went to war in Vietnam for the right reasons, fighting for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people and history has proven this fact. However, because of the likes of John Kerry, the United States abandoned the Vietnamese people to the brutal fascist Vietnamese communists.
In his campaign, John Forbes Kerry heralds his military record as a badge of honor in his campaign; only after coming home, he desecrated it -- That's not what a hero does. John Forbes Kerry does not deserve the respect of Veterans, nor their vote, or the vote of Vietnamese Americans who value honor over deceit. Don't let the United States once again betray the Vietnamese people by electing John Kerry as President.
by Michel D. Benge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
forwarded by:
Mofak
Fallujah Delenda Est
Marine Fighter Pilot for Bush
Back to Back We Face the Past
http://www.mofak.com/
*****************
To read a comprehensive BIO on Michael D. Benge, connect to:
http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/b/b600.htm
Other references to Mike Benge can be found through a standard internet web search.
PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO OTHERS - THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE CONSTANTLY REPEATED
THE MYTH OF THE 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES': A SHAMELESS LIE
One of the Sailor's favorite soldiers, tears apart the phony NY Times/CBS News story on "missing" weapons. Have at them, Ralph. - Sailor
THE MYTH OF THE 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES': A SHAMELESS LIE BY RALPH PETERS
Ralph Peters
NY Post
October 28, 2004 -- SHOULD the United Nations decide who be comes our president? Sen. John Kerry wouldn't mind. He's shamelessly promoting the lies that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is telling about Iraq.
A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.
Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.
One: The IAEA claims its inspectors visited the ammo dump at Al-Qaqaa on March 9, 2003, and found the agency's seals intact on bunkers containing sensitive munitions. Unverifiable, but let's assume that much is true.
Two: Faced with an impending invasion, Saddam's forces did what any military would do. They began dispersing ammunition stocks from every storage site that might be a Coalition bombing target. If the Iraqis valued it, they tried to move it. Before the war.
Three: Members of our 3rd Infantry Division — the heroes who led the march to Baghdad — reached the site in question in early April. Despite the pressures of combat, they combed the dump. Nothing was found. Al-Qaqaa was a vast junkyard.
Four: Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers — even one would have been a red flag to be reported immediately.
Five: At the end of May, military teams searching for key Iraqi weapons scoured Al-Qaqaa. They found plenty of odds and ends — the detritus of war — but no IAEA seals. And no major stockpiles.
Six: Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA, a discredited organization embarrassed by the Bush administration's decision to call it on the carpet, suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.
Seven: Even if repeated inspections by U.S. troops had somehow missed this deadly elephant on the front porch, and even if the otherwise-incompetent Iraqis had been so skilled and organized they were able to sneak into Al-Qaqaa and load up 400 tons of Saddam's love-powder, it would have taken a Teamsters' convention to get the job done.
Eight: If the Iraqis had used military transport vehicles of five-ton capacity, it would have required 80 trucks for one big lift, or, say, 20 trucks each making four trips. They would have needed special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts and skilled drivers (explosives aren't groceries). This operation could not have happened either during or after the war, while the Al-Qaqaa area was flooded with U.S. troops.
Nine: We owned the skies. And when you own the skies, you own the roads. We were watching for any sign of organized movement. A gaggle of non-Coalition vehicles driving in and out of an ammo dump would have attracted the attention of our surveillance systems immediately.
Ten: And you don't just drive high explosives cross-country, unless you want to hear a very loud bang. Besides, the Iraqis would have needed to hide those 400 tons of explosives somewhere else. Unless the uploaded trucks are still driving around Iraq.
Eleven: Even if the IAEA told the truth and the Iraqis were stealth-logistics geniuses who emptied the site's ammo bunkers under our noses, the entire issue misses a greater point: 400 tons of explosives amounted to a miniscule fraction of the stocks Saddam had built up. Coalition demolition experts spent months destroying more than 400,000 tons of Iraqi war-making materiel.
Our soldiers eliminated more than a thousand tons of packaged death for every ton the United Nations claims they missed. Does that sound like incompetence? Why hasn't our success been mentioned? Can't our troops get credit for anything?
Twelve: The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.
Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
THE MYTH OF THE 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES': A SHAMELESS LIE BY RALPH PETERS
Ralph Peters
NY Post
October 28, 2004 -- SHOULD the United Nations decide who be comes our president? Sen. John Kerry wouldn't mind. He's shamelessly promoting the lies that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is telling about Iraq.
A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.
Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.
One: The IAEA claims its inspectors visited the ammo dump at Al-Qaqaa on March 9, 2003, and found the agency's seals intact on bunkers containing sensitive munitions. Unverifiable, but let's assume that much is true.
Two: Faced with an impending invasion, Saddam's forces did what any military would do. They began dispersing ammunition stocks from every storage site that might be a Coalition bombing target. If the Iraqis valued it, they tried to move it. Before the war.
Three: Members of our 3rd Infantry Division — the heroes who led the march to Baghdad — reached the site in question in early April. Despite the pressures of combat, they combed the dump. Nothing was found. Al-Qaqaa was a vast junkyard.
Four: Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers — even one would have been a red flag to be reported immediately.
Five: At the end of May, military teams searching for key Iraqi weapons scoured Al-Qaqaa. They found plenty of odds and ends — the detritus of war — but no IAEA seals. And no major stockpiles.
Six: Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA, a discredited organization embarrassed by the Bush administration's decision to call it on the carpet, suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.
Seven: Even if repeated inspections by U.S. troops had somehow missed this deadly elephant on the front porch, and even if the otherwise-incompetent Iraqis had been so skilled and organized they were able to sneak into Al-Qaqaa and load up 400 tons of Saddam's love-powder, it would have taken a Teamsters' convention to get the job done.
Eight: If the Iraqis had used military transport vehicles of five-ton capacity, it would have required 80 trucks for one big lift, or, say, 20 trucks each making four trips. They would have needed special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts and skilled drivers (explosives aren't groceries). This operation could not have happened either during or after the war, while the Al-Qaqaa area was flooded with U.S. troops.
Nine: We owned the skies. And when you own the skies, you own the roads. We were watching for any sign of organized movement. A gaggle of non-Coalition vehicles driving in and out of an ammo dump would have attracted the attention of our surveillance systems immediately.
Ten: And you don't just drive high explosives cross-country, unless you want to hear a very loud bang. Besides, the Iraqis would have needed to hide those 400 tons of explosives somewhere else. Unless the uploaded trucks are still driving around Iraq.
Eleven: Even if the IAEA told the truth and the Iraqis were stealth-logistics geniuses who emptied the site's ammo bunkers under our noses, the entire issue misses a greater point: 400 tons of explosives amounted to a miniscule fraction of the stocks Saddam had built up. Coalition demolition experts spent months destroying more than 400,000 tons of Iraqi war-making materiel.
Our soldiers eliminated more than a thousand tons of packaged death for every ton the United Nations claims they missed. Does that sound like incompetence? Why hasn't our success been mentioned? Can't our troops get credit for anything?
Twelve: The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.
Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
About Those Lost Weapons.....
After a longer then expected hiatus, the Sailor is back and back with a vengence. How desperate is the left getting, now that the scent of defeat is in the air for their prize poodle? In the next few days expect the DNC propaganda machine, also know as the main stream media, to dredge up what ever they can find, or make up to defeat the President.
It has already started with the New York Times/CBS bogus reporting on missing weapons. James Glassman of Tech Central Station gives his view on this below. - Sailor
About Those Lost Weapons...
By James K. Glassman
Published 10/27/2004
Tech Central Station
So the Democrats, with help from the New York Times, have produced their October Surprise. What a dud!
In fact, the story the Times reported Monday gives enormous support to President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq in the first place.
The Times breathlessly reported that nearly 400 tons of explosives, part of Saddam Hussein's old weapons program, had disappeared from an installation south of Baghdad. The implication was that the Bush Administration was at fault for not securing the cache. Because the president skimped on troops, goes this reasoning, there were not enough U.S. soldiers to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles. Those weapons could now be used against Americans here at home.
The Kerry campaign has been flogging the story like crazy, and an ad is being prepared, which has Kerry accusing Bush of failing "to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kind used for…terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments…make our country less secure."
John Edwards noted on the trail that one pound of the explosives is enough to bring down an airliner.
Apparently, the Times scooped CBS TV's "60 Minutes," which had planned to run the story on the Sunday before the election. The source had peddled the tale to both outlets, and the New York Times rushed it into print.
As it turns out, it's not much of a story. First of all, the administration didn't screw up. It seems the weapons may have been gone when we got to Baghdad.
Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX" said Miklaszewski.
Then on Tuesday Miklaszewski provided more details. He reported that the 101st airborne troops "were not actively involved in the search for any weapons" and that, given the size of the Al Qaqaa facility, it's unclear if the 101st was "near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." But he went on to say that "in March, shortly before the war began, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] conducted another inspection and … inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound." It seems some of the missing materials were moved even before Americans set foot in Iraq - right under the UN's nose! Pentagon officials have speculated that Saddam could have ordered the materials moved before the invasion by coalition forces.
But far more important, Kerry's complaints about Bush only enforce Bush's reason for invading Iraq. Think about it.
Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives -- whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not -- was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.
Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be usedagainst us here at home -- either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.
If we had followed Kerry's strategy, Iraq today would have far more than 380 tons of explosives to use against us.
Last Sunday, the Washington Post buried a remarkable article by Bob Woodward that listed 22 questions that the nation's top investigative reporter wanted to ask Kerry. The questions, Woodward wrote, were "based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."
Woodward began seeking the interview in June. He had already spent three and a half hours with the president. At first, Kerry's aides said the interview would happen, but, after months of stringing Woodward along, Kerry changed his mind. "The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers," wrote Woodward.
We'll just have to take Kerry's word for it.
The truth, however, is that Kerry has never offered an alternative strategy for Iraq, except to say that he would work more closely with France and Germany, countries that were not going to hold Saddam to account under any circumstances.
Now, as a result of his exploitation of the questionable New York Times story, we know a bit more. The clear implication is that, in a Kerry administration, the 380 tons of weapons would not have been lost; they would have been secured -- even without an invasion. A miracle!
It has already started with the New York Times/CBS bogus reporting on missing weapons. James Glassman of Tech Central Station gives his view on this below. - Sailor
About Those Lost Weapons...
By James K. Glassman
Published 10/27/2004
Tech Central Station
So the Democrats, with help from the New York Times, have produced their October Surprise. What a dud!
In fact, the story the Times reported Monday gives enormous support to President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq in the first place.
The Times breathlessly reported that nearly 400 tons of explosives, part of Saddam Hussein's old weapons program, had disappeared from an installation south of Baghdad. The implication was that the Bush Administration was at fault for not securing the cache. Because the president skimped on troops, goes this reasoning, there were not enough U.S. soldiers to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles. Those weapons could now be used against Americans here at home.
The Kerry campaign has been flogging the story like crazy, and an ad is being prepared, which has Kerry accusing Bush of failing "to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kind used for…terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments…make our country less secure."
John Edwards noted on the trail that one pound of the explosives is enough to bring down an airliner.
Apparently, the Times scooped CBS TV's "60 Minutes," which had planned to run the story on the Sunday before the election. The source had peddled the tale to both outlets, and the New York Times rushed it into print.
As it turns out, it's not much of a story. First of all, the administration didn't screw up. It seems the weapons may have been gone when we got to Baghdad.
Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX" said Miklaszewski.
Then on Tuesday Miklaszewski provided more details. He reported that the 101st airborne troops "were not actively involved in the search for any weapons" and that, given the size of the Al Qaqaa facility, it's unclear if the 101st was "near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." But he went on to say that "in March, shortly before the war began, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] conducted another inspection and … inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound." It seems some of the missing materials were moved even before Americans set foot in Iraq - right under the UN's nose! Pentagon officials have speculated that Saddam could have ordered the materials moved before the invasion by coalition forces.
But far more important, Kerry's complaints about Bush only enforce Bush's reason for invading Iraq. Think about it.
Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives -- whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not -- was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.
Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be usedagainst us here at home -- either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.
If we had followed Kerry's strategy, Iraq today would have far more than 380 tons of explosives to use against us.
Last Sunday, the Washington Post buried a remarkable article by Bob Woodward that listed 22 questions that the nation's top investigative reporter wanted to ask Kerry. The questions, Woodward wrote, were "based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."
Woodward began seeking the interview in June. He had already spent three and a half hours with the president. At first, Kerry's aides said the interview would happen, but, after months of stringing Woodward along, Kerry changed his mind. "The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers," wrote Woodward.
We'll just have to take Kerry's word for it.
The truth, however, is that Kerry has never offered an alternative strategy for Iraq, except to say that he would work more closely with France and Germany, countries that were not going to hold Saddam to account under any circumstances.
Now, as a result of his exploitation of the questionable New York Times story, we know a bit more. The clear implication is that, in a Kerry administration, the 380 tons of weapons would not have been lost; they would have been secured -- even without an invasion. A miracle!
Monday, October 04, 2004
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
This is a potential bombshell. If verifiable, it ends all the nonsense about going to wasr with Iraq. - Sailor
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
The source of the documents
A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.
There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.
Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.
Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."
Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that "based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate ..."
The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.
"This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers," added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity.
The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer "whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended."
Presidential campaign focused on Iraq
The presidential campaign is currently dominated by debate over whether Saddam procured weapons of mass destruction and/or whether his government sponsored terrorism aimed at Americans before the U.S. invaded Iraq last year. Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry has repeatedly rejected that possibility and criticized President Bush for needlessly invading Iraq.
"[Bush's] two main rationales - weapons of mass destruction and the al Qaeda/September 11 (2001) connection - have been proved false ... by the president's own weapons inspectors ... and by the 9/11 Commission," Kerry told an audience at New York University on Sept. 20.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of the 9/11 intelligence failures also could not produce any definitive links between Saddam's government and 9/11. And United Nations as well as U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq have been unable to find the biological and chemical weapons Saddam was suspected of possessing.
But the documents obtained by CNSNews.com shed new light on the controversy.
They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)
The documents show that Iraqi intelligence received the mustard gas and anthrax from "Saddam's company," which Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, "a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication."
"Sa'ad's general company" is listed on the Iraqi documents as the supplier of the sterilization and decontamination equipment that accompanied the anthrax vials. Tefft believes this is a reference to the Salah Al-Din State Establishment, also involved in missile construction. (See Saddam's Possession of Anthrax)
The Jaber Ibn Hayan General Company is listed as the supplier of the safety equipment that accompanied the mustard gas order. Tefft described the company as "a 'turn-key' project built by Romania, designed to produce protective CW (conventional warfare) and BW (biological warfare) equipment (gas masks and protective clothing)."
"Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended," the senior government official and source of the documents said. "This should cause us to redouble our efforts to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs."
'Hunt the Americans'
The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."
On Oct. 3, 1993, less than nine months after that Iraqi memo was written, American soldiers were ambushed in Mogadishu, Somalia by forces loyal to Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden. Eighteen Americans were killed and 84 wounded during a 17-hour firefight that followed the ambush in which Aidid's followers used civilians as decoys. (See Saddam's Connections to al Qaeda)
An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. currently is offering rewards of up to $25 million for each man's capture.
The documents describe Al-Jehad wa'l Tajdeed as "a secret Palestinian organization" founded after the first Persian Gulf War that "believes in armed struggle against U.S. and western interests." The leaders of the group, according to the Iraqi memo, were stationed in Jordan in 1993, and when one of those leaders visited Iraq in November 1992, he "showed the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests at any time." (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
Tefft believes the Tajdeed group likely included al-Zarqawi, whom Teft described as "our current terrorist nemesis" in Iraq, "a Palestinian on a Jordanian passport who was with al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan prior to this period (1993)."
Tajdeed, which means Islamic Renewal, currently "has a website that posts Zarqawi's speeches, messages, claims of assassinations and beheading videos," Tefft told CNSNews.com. "The apparent linkages are too close to be accidental" and might "be one of the first operational contacts between an al Qaeda group and Iraq," he added.
Tefft said the documents, all of which the Iraqi Intelligence Service labeled "Top secret, personal and urgent" show several links between Saddam's government and terror groups dedicated not only to targeting America but also U.S. allies like Egypt and Israel.
The same 11-page memo refers to the "re-opening of the relationship" with Al-Jehad al-Islamy, which is described as "the most violent in Egypt," responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. The documents go on to describe a Dec. 14, 1990 meeting between Iraqi intelligence officials and a representative of Al-Jehad al-Islamy, that ended in an agreement "to move against [the] Egyptian regime by doing martyr operations on conditions that we should secure the finance, training and equipments." (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda)
Al-Zawahiri was one of the leaders of Jehad al-Islamy, which is also known as the Egyptian Islamic Group, and participated in the assassination of Sadat, Tefft said. "Iraq's contact with the Egyptian Islamic Group is another operational contact between Iraq and al Qaeda," he added.
One of the Asian groups listed on the Iraqi intelligence memo is J.U.I., also known as the Islamic Clerks Society. The group is currently led by Mawlana Fadhel al-Rahman, whom Tefft said is "an al Qaeda member and co-signed Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious ruling) to kill Americans." The Iraqi memo from 1993 states that J.U.I.'s secretary general "has a good relationship with our system since 1981 and he is ready for any mission." Tefft said the memo shows "another direct Iraq link to an al Qaeda group."
Iraq had also maintained a relationship with the Afghani Islamist party since 1989, according to the memo. The "relationship was improved and became directly between the leader, Hekmatyar and Iraq," it states, referring to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani warlord who fought against the Soviet Union and current al Qaeda ally, according to Tefft.
Last year, American authorities in Afghanistan ranked Hekmatyar third on their most wanted list, behind only bin Laden and former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Hekmatyar represents "another Iraqi link to an al Qaeda group," Tefft said. (See More Saddam Connections to al Qaeda) The Iraqi intelligence documents also refer to terrorist groups previously believed to have had links with Saddam Hussein. They include the Palestine Liberation Front, a group dedicated to attacking Israel, and according to the Iraqi memo, one with "an office in Baghdad."
The Abu Nidal group, suspected by the CIA of having acted as surrogates for Iraqi terrorist attacks, is also mentioned
."The movement believes in political violence and assassinations," the 1993 Iraqi memo states in reference to the Abu Nidal organization. "We have relationships with them since 1973. Currently, they have a representative in the country. Monthly helps are given to them -- 20 thousand dinars - in addition to other supports," the memo explains. (See Saddam's Connections to Palestinian Terror Groups)
Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries are listed on the papers.
Many are described as having "finished the course at M14," a reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having "participated in Umm El-Ma'arek," the Iraqi response to the U.S. invasion in 1991. The author of the list notes that approximately half of the individuals "all got trained inside the 'martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate."
The former UNSCOM weapons inspector who was asked to analyze the documents believes it's clear that the Iraqis "were training people there in assassination and suicide bombing techniques ... including non-Iraqis."
Bush administration likely unaware of documents' existence.
The senior government official and source of the Iraqi intelligence memos, explained that the reason the documents have not been made public before now is that the government has "thousands and thousands of documents waiting to be translated. "It is unlikely they even know this exists," the source added.The government official also explained that the motivation for leaking the documents, "is strictly national security and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's attention on facts and away from political posturing.
"This is too important to let it get caught up in the political process," the source told CNSNews.com.
To protect against the Iraqi intelligence documents being altered or misrepresented elsewhere on the Internet, CNSNews.com has decided to publish only the first of the 42 pages in Arabic, along with the English translation. Portions of some of the other memos in translated form are also being published to accompany this report. Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com headquarters in Alexandria, Va.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)