Can America Survive a ''Thoughtful and Sensitive'' War Against and Terrorists?

Finally, some one actually understands why this is a war with terror and there can be no negotiations. Barbara Stock give a very clear and concise veiw of why negotiating with this scum will not work. - Sailor



Can America Survive a ''Thoughtful and Sensitive'' War Against and Terrorists?
-->Written by Barbara StockThursday, August 12, 2004
Out on the campaign trail, John Kerry has stated that if he were elected president, he would fight a more ''thoughtful and sensitive war'' against the terrorists. After the shock of the ignorance of this statement passed, laughter followed. A lot of laughter followed.
Perhaps some background is in order. First, who is the enemy? Many seem to be working under the misguided impression that if one man named Osama bin Laden is hunted down and killed, this war will be over. After all, when Hitler put a bullet in his brain, the war in Europe ended. Would it not be the same in this war? No, it would not.
Bin Laden is but one leader in a large group of radical Islamic fundamentalists who feel it is Islam’s destiny to rule the world. They believe that this has been promised to them by Allah. They were defeated once by the Christian Europeans and they have not forgotten nor forgiven. The enemy has now focused on the leader of the free world, the United States. We are the evil Satan that stands between Islam and the fulfillment of its prophecy.
Radical Islam has much of Europe within its grasp. A train was bombed and a country folded. Some European countries have growing numbers of Muslim immigrants that in some cases are now 20% of the population. Anti-Semitism is on an alarming rise in Europe. The slogan of ''Blame the Jew'' is becoming popular once again. A group of college students were touring Auschwitz carrying an Israeli flag and they were attacked by French students also on the tour. It is unconscionable that Jews would be attacked in such a place.
Spain set a dangerous precedence when it caved in to terrorist demands, voted in the anti-American government, and pulled its troops out of Iraq as the terrorists demanded. As an added bonus for the terrorists, Spain blamed the United States for the bombing instead of the men who actually committed the act. If terrorists are rewarded for killing, they will continue killing.
Radical Islam has many leaders, and Bin Laden is only one of them. Killing Osama will barely slow the terrorists down. Bin Laden will be immortalized as a martyr and his terrorist movement will continue, always looking towards its ultimate goal of world dominance. Radical Islam must destroy America and all it stands for to have any chance of success.
Let’s briefly review the tactics of this enemy. It has flown planes into our buildings, killing 3000 people in the blink of an eye. Terrorists strap bombs on to small children and, using remote control, blows them up after they are in a crowd. It has put bullets into a toddler’s head at point-blank range. This warring faction of Islam has blown up cars and buses, killing kindergarten children in Iraq and young men standing in line for a job. Funamentalist Islam slaughters fellow Muslims without a second thought. It has extensive plans for further attacks on America with the hope of killing thousands more people than it killed on 9/11.
Terrorists laugh at the Geneva Conventions and behead, rape, and kill men, women, children, and babies without regard. Terrorists kill them all and rejoice in the deed. White flags mean nothing to this killer. Weakness is a sign of victory to this enemy and it will move in quickly for the kill as any predator would do. This enemy is willing to die without hesitation for its cause.
Nature shows us that when a predator is stalking prey it shows amazing patience as it singles out the weakest in the herd. Then, it moves in for the kill. It is survival of the fittest. The strong live another day and the weak become a meal. Europe is slowly becoming a meal. The United States by contrast, has become the predator. The enemy did not expect this and its rage is expressed by its constant threats of how our streets ''will run rivers of blood.''
Now we return to John Kerry’s totally ridiculous statement that he wants to have a ''sensitive'' war against terrorists. How, exactly, does one do this? I cannot imagine how John Kerry can believe that terrorists can be reasoned with in a ''thoughtful and sincere'' fashion.
John Kerry has said that he will have meetings with world leaders where he will profusely apologize for the boorish behavior of America under the Bush administration. Kerry believes that this ''rejoining of the world family'' will cure all ills, and our allies--mainly France and Germany--will be our friends once again. But the question is, will they help America in the war on terror or will they continue to be concerned only about their own internal affairs? As has been clearly shown, many European countries are quick to capitulate to terrorist demands.
While John Kerry is busy being ''thoughtful and sensitive'' around the world, radical Islam will be planting its bombs in major American cities. Terrorists just love ''thoughtful and sensitive'' people. These people are easier to kill because they are busy being ''sensitive.''
No American president can sit at a table and negotiate with a terrorist leader because the term ''terrorist'' does not refer to a nation of people but a splintered group driven by an absolute belief in religious supremacy that has infected members of Islam all over the world like a disease.
John Kerry cannot have a ''thoughtful and sincere'' battle plan against people whose only desire is to kill all infidels, no matter how long it takes, no matter how many lives are lost. The enemy has spent generations preparing for this final battle. It has indoctrinated its children to hate. Radical Islam has ingrained in its children’s consciousness that dying for Allah while killing the evil ones is the only route to paradise.
The enemy cannot be reasoned with because it is incapable of reason. It does not understand ''thoughtful and sincere.'' Those words are not in a terrorist’s realm of conscious thought. An American president who uses such words will be perceived as weak and the predator will attack with renewed viciousness, sensing the kill.
History is repeating itself. The enemy has a different, more shadowy face, but it is just as lethal as past enemies. Make no mistake, its goal is the same. America’s response must be the same. The response must be decisive and lethal. The time for ''thoughtful and sincere'' passed almost four years ago when 3000 people died in an attack by an enemy emboldened by the weakness it perceived from the giant that had once again gone to sleep. Americans are awake, but dozing, and the war is far from over. Alas, the real war has just started.
About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.

Former FBI Agent Warns Swift Boat Vets

I want to thank Agent Aldrich for his kind words and support. He knows exactly what the Swiftees are about to go through. He stood alone and took it from all sides. Just goes to show you how far the left will go to suppress the truth. To those on the left, we are ready for you, we have already spilt our blood. Your attacks are as feeble as you are. Give us your best shot, then we will give ours and overwhelm you. - Sailor.


Former FBI Agent Warns Swift Boat Vets
Gary Aldrich
townhall.com

August 10, 2004


In 1996, I took the ride of my life, but I have no regrets about exposing Bill Clinton for the louse that he is. Blowing the whistle on a powerful politician was different from any activity I had ever undertaken, and I arrested people and dodged bullets for a living!

I thought I had seen it all, but I was wrong.

When I began my quest to surface the truth, I was an honest, independent, a-political FBI agent. But, when the establishment was finished with me, I was “aligned with the Dole campaign, Big Tobacco, shadowy right-wing financiers of various anti-Clinton cabals and conspiracies, and a friend of the NRA!” The “Left” attacked me while the “Right” ran and hid in the tall grass.

The truth did not matter – I was whatever the news media said I was. I’ve labored long and hard to regain my reputation and credibility, and to some degree I have succeeded. But for a lot of Americans, all they will ever remember about my attempt to tell the truth is that the president’s top advisor, George Stephanopoulos, called me a pathological liar.

So, my warning to the Swift Boat Vets is this: When you take on the establishment, be prepared to suffer serious assaults to your reputation, at least in the short run. Over time, you will be proven to be honest, as well as brave. Eventually, your reputations will be mostly restored, but nothing will ever be the same for you again. The mainstream media will work diligently to alter the population’s perception of you in ways that you could not possibly imagine.

They will demonize, and then marginalize you so that your impact on this coming election will be minimal.

Many have come before you and have suffered the same fate. When you become whistle-blowers and take on the establishment, you’ll find few friends within the establishment, right or left, to support you. The establishment does not want the truth; therefore, your real support will come from the grass roots.

You have already had some hint of this from the recent White House response to your Television ad. They said they didn’t like it. Your effective and moving testimony as Swift Boat veterans who really did know John Kerry blew his war-hero cover to bits.

If your 60-second ad were given honest exposure, the election would be all but over, and the people who have seen it know this. That’s why they will destroy you, then ignore you.

The establishment can’t stand people like you. Especially not now, not after the candidates have gone through the primary process and are coming down to the wire. There is much campaigning to come, and so much money to be spent. You just cannot have a circumstance where the people are given honest information that would alter the course of an election. It’s just not done, you see?

Besides, the mainstream media does not like George Bush, and they will do nothing to help him win re-election. Did you think for a minute that they would rush to cover your press conferences and report the news that the majority of Veterans cannot stand John Kerry? Did you actually believe you would be invited on “Sixty Minutes”? Even now, reporters are out looking for your dirty laundry and trying to poke holes in your stories. After they find out that your stories match, have the ring of truth, and that you’re decent folk just trying to do what’s right, they will simply close their notebooks and quietly walk away.

And don’t expect to speak at the GOP convention in New York City or sit in the president’s box, like Michael Moore did at the Democrats’ convention. The GOP establishment doesn’t like the ad – it makes them very nervous. For example, it upset Senator John McCain, who rushed to defend his senatorial pal when he heard about it.

Of course, Senator McCain wishes all grass-roots types and ordinary folk would just go away. He has been instrumental in silencing a lot of Americans with his campaign finance legislation. Senator McCain is part of the establishment now, and the establishment does not care for boat rockers.

You have served our country well, and your exploits were heroic. You received real wounds, some of you, and you earned honest to goodness Purple Hearts and other medals which you wear proudly. You faced death and you took life in a war, and then you came home to a nation that has failed to honor you properly. You have never forgotten that this dishonest man, John Kerry, and his friends in the mainstream media caused the scorn you experienced.

But you didn’t let that get you down. You blended back into society in various ways. You have become successes in the private sector, where you have labored for decades, minding your own business and mostly letting others charge the windmills of political protest.

But like whistle-blowers before you, you came to believe that you were in possession of significant information that the American people needed to know before an important election and as a nation. You stood up for the truth, and we owe you a debt of gratitude – again!

We are a nation that was attacked, and now we are at war. We’re trying to protect ourselves against future attacks, and because of what you know – first hand – you believe with all your hearts that Senator Kerry should not become commander in chief. At least, not right now – not at this time.

I believe Kerry will lose in a landslide, just like George McGovern in 1972. I believe the reason he will lose is, in part, because you had the courage to step forward and tell the American people the truth. The people will get the truth – they always do.

You will take hits and wounds of a different kind this time, but your solace may be found printed on a sign that once sat on the desk of a great president, Ronald Reagan. It read, “Great things can be accomplished as long as you don’t care about who gets the credit.”


Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.

Electing a War Criminal/Perjurer President

Doc Farmer is on a roll and I am going to stick with him here. Today, he asks a very important question and gives us the some serious information on the poodle that all need to contemplate. - Sailor




Electing a War Criminal/Perjurer President
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, August 11, 2004


America is, in some ways, a very great and good nation. Good people, good land, good opportunities. It’s not a perfect place, but this is Earth not Heaven, so the best we can do is to strive for a more perfect union. In many ways we get there, at least in comparison with other nations.

However, there are some things that boggle the mind. Presidential elections are one of them.

And we’re coming up on another one in less than three months. Oh, it’ll seem far longer
than that, I assure you. Claims, counter-claims, lies, damned lies, statistics, slander, libel, election fraud, vote buying – and that’s just the lib/dem/soc/commies.

But what do you do when one of your candidates shouldn’t even be a candidate in the first place?

Such is the case we have today.

John Forbes Kerry – aka Hanoi John, JFK-lite, Lurch, Botox-boy, etc. – is the nominee for the lib/dem/soc/commies. He has an ADA liberal rating of 90%, which puts him to the left of ALL of his Senate brethren. Not virtually all, just ALL. He’s more liberal than Teddy ''Don’t Worry, Mary-Jo, I’ll Drive'' Kennedy. He’s more liberal than Hillary ''Of Course I’m A Lesbian, You’ve Seen My Husband Haven’t You?'' Clinton. He’s probably even more liberal than Josef ''I Love the Smell of Pogroms in the Morning'' Stalin.

Nevertheless, he’s the
lib/dem/soc/commie’s choice as candidate.

He’s also something else. He’s a self-confessed war criminal.

In 1971, Lieutenant Junior-Grade went before a Senate committee investigating the Vietnam War. The war it wanted desperately to lose (at least, those lib/dem/soc/commies in Congress). Lt. JG. Kerry said the following about the ''witnesses'' of the Winter Soldier investigation –

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

Previous to this, he made the following statement on Meet the Press"

''There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones . I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.''

Based on this information you have only two choices. First, that Kerry was telling the truth, in which case he is a war criminal. Second, that Kerry lied under oath about the ''atrocities'' of Vietnam, in which case he is a perjurer.
Question: Why would anybody want either type of person in the Oval Office in the first place?

Let’s examine what would happen if Kerry were (God Forbid!) elected president. Assuming he told the truth and he is a war criminal, that would mean that he would come under the aegis of the International Criminal Court. Since the leaders of nations are not exempt from its jurisdiction (see also: Milosevic, Slobodan) he could, theoretically, be indicted and arraigned for war crimes. I’m unaware of any statute of limitations on war crimes, so even 30+ years after the fact, we’d be in the unenviable position of having a leader of the free world standing in the dock while charge after charge was filed.

How
about if Kerry lied? What would the effect be there? Well, it’d be similar to the effect of the Clinton years after he perjured himself. Here we would have the chief law enforcement officer of the nation in the position of someone who perverted the course of justice by lying under oath. Granted it wouldn’t be the same as lying under oath while in office, but nobody in the lib/dem/soc/commie side could ever argue that it was ''only about sex'' or that it ''didn’t matter.''

What brought us to this place? How did our country become so jaded, so morally degraded, to allow someone in power whose resume includes a choice of war criminal or perjurer? It would be easy to blame the persons who committed the crime, and blame them we should. But perhaps we should also blame those who allowed them to come to power.

J. Michael Straczynski, one of my favorite writers, posited an important set of
thoughts in his career as a television writer and creator. As a Sci-Fi fan, it’s understandable to see how a futuristic setting allows a writer to speak on current events without the fear of censorship. Here is part of an exchange he used in ''The Exercise of Vital Powers'' episode of Babylon 5, which speaks loudly of today’s situation:

Edgars: How many people actually belonged to the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Jihad Party? A very small number. But there were always plenty of other people who were happy to do the work for them, and others afraid enough to let it happen.

Garibaldi: In order for them to take power, they’d need an army.

Edgars: You’re still laboring under the notion that people take power. Nobody takes power. They’re given power by the rest of us. Because we’re stupid or afraid or both.

When you consider what the DNC is selling – lies, half-truths, divisions and racism disguised as ''compassion,'' it makes us
understand that we’ve gotten the government we deserve over the past six decades. However, it’s not solely their fault. The lib/dem/soc/commies have lied to us, true. Nevertheless, we, as a nation, have accepted those lies as the normal course of politics. We’ve accepted the divisions and racism and slander and fraud as ''business as usual.'' We’ve accepted political and moral corruption, and worse, we’ve voted for it because it sounded ''pretty'' or ''reasonable'' instead of accepting the hard and painful truths that would allow us to grow and prosper as a nation.

John Forbes Kerry is not fit for the presidency. He’s not fit for the Senate. He’s not fit for any public office. Don’t accept the spin anymore, folks. Don’t accept the lie. Don’t settle for less because you think it’s the best you can get. It’s not. You deserve better than Kerry. So does America.


About the
Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8983

The Swift Boat Ad--A Rebuttal

Doc Farmer gives that kerry shill, Susan Estrich, a little dose of the truth. Too bad Doc cannot confront her in person. Of course the truth might make Susan melt. Great rebuttal, Doc, I salute you! - Sailor






The Swift Boat Ad--A Rebuttal
Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004


Editor's Note: The original article below is from the column, ''The Swift Boat Ad,'' by Susan Estrich. After reading it, Doc Farmer became so incensed that he decided to rebut her article point for point. Ms. Estrich's article is in black, and Doc Farmer's comments are in blue.



The latest piece of ugliness in this year's presidential race is an ad attacking John Kerry's record as a swift boat captain in the Vietnam War.

If the add reflects the truth, Ms. Estrich, then then ugliness is the fact that your vaunted lib/dem/soc/commie candidate is a liar. It seems to be the habit of your side of the political aisle...

In what is shaping up to be the ugliest, slimiest, dirtiest year in presidential history, this one takes the cake--so far.

Ah, so the MoveOn.org ad finalist comparing Dubya to Hitler is apparently less ugly than the truth about Kerry, eh?

The ad is an attack not only on Kerry, but also on the military itself--an attack on the process by which the military awards honors and on the men who vouched for Kerry when he was awarded his.

Wrong. Kerry's lies are what have dishonoured the military, madam. He diminished the awards of all others who received them for valid, justified means. That's not the fault of the ad, nor of the Swift Boat Vets. It's Kerry's fault.

It is known as the ''Swift Boat Ad.'' If you haven't seen it, you will certainly hear about it. It features men who claim that they served with Kerry, and who argue that he wasn't really the war hero that his shipmates and the Navy say he was.

The ''claim,'' as you put it, is the truth. They served with Kerry. They may not have all served on the same boat, but a Swift Boat can only handle about six or seven people. There are 12 in the ad. Do the math...

Some of the men in the ad have been Kerry enemies for years. Most have developed new memories of events that are 30 years old since Kerry emerged as the Democratic nominee.

Sorry, is somebody who disagrees with Kerry automatically viewed as an ''enemy" or is this just more hyperbole to discredit the honorable in order to protect the dishonorable? As to the "new memories" there is nothing new about them. Kerry never ran for president before. Perhaps, Ms. Estrich, you should check out the difference between a senator and a president. One is not responsible for U.S. troops, and the other one is. That said, if you knew somebody couldn't handle that responsibility, wouldn't you pipe up and say so? Or would you only do that if he were a political ''enemy''?

The White House, defending an incumbent who is still trying to support claims that he fulfilled his military service with dental records from Alabama from the summer of 1972, has contended that it has nothing to do with the ad, but it has refused to demand that its supporters, who financed it, take it off the air.

Ah, you're raising that old canard again, eh? Dubya didn't fulfill his service? What a load of male bovine excrement. It has been proved--PROVED--that he did. The documentation is released and available. Now, unless you've got proof positive that Dubya evaded service, aided and comforted the enemy, illegally negotiated with communists in Paris, or other accusations (and by the way, Kerry did all those things!) then kindly shut your pie-hole.
Consider:

• None of the men who are behind the ad were actually on a swift boat with Kerry. Of the 10 still living who did, nine are supporting Kerry.
  
  No, none of those men served on Kerry's Swift Boat with Kerry. There was never a claim that they did serve on the same Swift Boat. However, they ALL served with Kerry. As to the nine surviving Swift Boat sailors, I wonder how many of them have been paid to support Kerry. Does that sound crass? Well, no more so than the vile claims you've been making, madam.
  
  
  
• The closest any of the men in the ad came to Kerry and his men was about half a football field away.
  
  This ain't a regatta these guys were serving in. You've just told a lie. They served a lot closer to Kerry than that, and you know it.
  
  
• The biggest financial backer of the group is a man named Bob Perry, a major supporter of President Bush and the Republican Party, who gave $100,00 to the group, which accounts for two-thirds of its receipts to date.
  
  So? You don't seem to have any problems with George Soros's millions for attack ads fromr 527 committees. Mr. Perry, if your information is correct, has contributed about 1% of Soros' bankroll for the lib/dem/soc/commies. But that's okay, right?
  
  
  
• A study in 2002 by Texans for Public Justice ranked Perry No. 2 among Republican donors in that year's Texas elections.
  
  Again, so what? That does not diminish the truth of the statements--or the fact that all the men filed affidavits. Now, swearing to the truth of something might not mean something to many lib/dem/soc/commies (especially some of them in high elected office), but I assure you it means a HELL of a lot to decorated war heros - REAL ones.
  
  
  
• The press for the group is being handled by the very same people who set out to discredit Sen. John McCain in 2000 when McCain, a former prisoner of war, challenged President Bush for the nomination for president. McCain, who is supporting Bush for the presidency, has denounced the ad.
  
  You're reduced to attacking the messenger. Perhaps because you don't have any honest ability to attack the veracity of the message itself. As to McCain, he has the right to denounce the ad if he so wishes. It doesn't mean he's correct. Same goes for you.
  
  
  
• The doctor in the ad who claims that John Kerry was lying about his injuries was not the doctor who signed John Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crew mate.
  
  Sick call forms are not always signed by the doctor. The doctor sees the patient and the yeoman or nurse signs the form for the files. You're just using courtroom tactics to try and discredit the truth. How sad for you.

This year, because of changes in the law, and the proliferation of independent groups, the presidential candidates have less control than ever over what goes over the airwaves in support of their candidacies. Even so, it is difficult to believe that Bush's friend Perry would ignore a call from the White House requesting him to stop supporting a group that is embarrassing the president.

On one point we agree--the change in the campaign finance law is an idiotic mess, made worse by the gross violation of the First Amendment and the unbelievable decision of the Supreme Court that this unconstitutional law was, somehow, constitutional.

As to Dubya's ''friend'' I would assume that he is not a puppet, to be directed by the president at his slightest whim. Besides, you lib/dem/soc/commies are always saying that Dubya's the real puppet. Make up your minds!

Last year, Republicans were quick to pounce on Moveon.org, an independent Democratic group, when a public contest included on ad that compared Bush to Hitler. The Republicans were right to be outraged--Democrats denounced the ad, and MoveOn removed it. In the end, it is not unfair to judge a candidate by the company he keeps.

Except that's exactly what you're saying here. Judge Kerry by the nine who are going on stage with him (probably paid or at least wined and dined by Kerry) but not the 250 or so who have joined the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign. Judge Dubya by his friendship with Mr. Perry, but don't judge Kerry by his relationship with Mr. Soros. Rep/cons were right to denounce the Hitler ad because it was based upon lies. The only reason you're honked off about the Swift Boats Ad, madam, is because it is based upon the truth.

The White House has said it does not believe that this election should be run on the issue of John Kerry's Vietnam War record. If it is, George Bush can only lose. He wasn't a hero--like Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, he did everything he could to avoid service in a dangerous war. He did not save anyone's life but his own.

The White House will not bring up Kerry's war record. However, Kerry is the one running on four bogus months in country. He got three band-aid boo-boos and rode out of Vietnam on that technicality. He came back and claimed to the Senate, under oath, that war crimes occurred in Vietnam, which makes him either 1) a war criminal or 2) a perjurer. We've already had a perjurer in the White House, thank you so very much, and we don't want another one in there. George Bush wasn't a war hero. But that's not a prerequisite for the presidency. What is required is leadership, honor, decency, and strength.

Kerry has none of those attributes, madam. That's probably why you want him in the Oval Office.

America deserves better than that.

Note. Susan Estrich's original article can be found at Article

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.


This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: ChronWatch

Nets Condemn Anti-Kerry Ad by Vets

The DNC propaganda arm, better known as the "mainstream" media, continues to try and discredit members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Had kerry been a Republican, you could bet the rent that they would be investigating these allegations to the hilt. Instead, they are protecting their candidate. The Boston Globe has already been involved in a cover up concerning their reporter, Michael Kranish's involvement in the writing of the poodle's campaign book. Posted is a rather long article from the Media Research Center, detailing the media bias. - Sailor


Nets Condemn Anti-Kerry Ad by Vets and
Focus on Bush's 7 Minutes

After abdicating their journalistic responsibility to report on how a significant number of officer colleagues of John Kerry's in Vietnam condemned his behavior during his four months in-country, or in the case of CBS, smearing them while running glowing profiles of the vets who are backing Kerry, CBS, CNN and MSNBC on Thursday night decried a new anti-Kerry TV ad produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. CBS anchor John Roberts stressed criticism of it over its content: "A harsh new television ad that attacks John Kerry is being denounced as quote, 'dishonest and dishonorable' by a Bush supporter, Republican Senator John McCain." (Just last week on the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather trumpeted "John Kerry's band of brothers from Vietnam on one last mission.")

CNN's NewsNight didn't inform viewers of the views of the veterans in the ad, just as the show on May 4 ignored, along with ABC and NBC, the press conference held by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But NewsNight, and ABC, had time on Thursday night for how John Kerry mocked President Bush for the seven minutes in the Florida classroom highlighted by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. "When Mr. Bush was told about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center, he stayed in front of a class of children in Florida for upwards of seven minutes," ABC's Dan Harris on Thursday night reminded viewers. CNN's Dana Bash managed to get in a positive look at Kerry in Vietnam. Viewers saw scenes from Kerry's film of himself in Vietnam as she relayed how "Senator Kerry says being President is about having gut instincts in those situations, toughness he found on a battlefield."

At the top of Thursday's NewsNight, anchor Aaron Brown had only cryptically referred to the ad from the anti-Kerry veterans: "If someone makes an allegation in a political campaign, a serious allegation, should we report it simply because it's made? Is the allegation itself news?"

Thursday's NBC Nightly News skipped the ad and instead ran a full story from Chip Reid about "Vote for Change," the anti-Bush series of concerts featuring musicians such as the Dixie Chicks and Bruce Springsteen.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann repeatedly, and one must assume deliberately, misstated the name of the group behind the ads, calling it not "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," but three times referring to "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush." Olbermann lamented: "The ads of campaign 2004 just stepped up to a new level today -- or down to one -- with the release of an anti-John Kerry commercial that immediately brought the condemnation not merely of the Kerry campaign, but also of Republican Senator John McCain, and even generally and at a distance, the White House. Our fifth story on the Countdown, Swift Boat Veterans for Bush..."

Olbermann, after going on at length about how those featured in the ad did not serve on Kerry's boat (though they were in the same division with him), asked Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly: "Well, why is this one worse than any other misdirecting unsubstantiated attack ad that is conveniently not directly traceable to the other candidate's campaign?" Crawford charged: "Well, as lies go, it's just another lie, I suppose..."

None of the broadcast network morning shows on Thursday touched the ad (see item #2 below for Friday morning coverage), but on Thursday the cable networks did pick up on the ad. FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume featured a story and discussed it during the panel segment, Bill O'Reilly looked at the subject and Hannity & Colmes, which on Wednesday night had played the ad, ran separate segments with a members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and a Kerry-backing Vietnam vet. MSNBC, a bit before 5pm EDT, showcased pro and con on Kerry Vietnam vets and devoted a large part of the misnamed After Hours show at 9pm EDT, co-hosted by Joe Scarborough and Ron Reagan, to it. I don't believe Hardball touched it on Thursday night. CNN looked at the ad on Inside Politics and Judy Woodruff interviewed Larry Thurlow of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Jim Rassmann, the man whose rescue by Kerry is in dispute.

NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered on Thursday didn't touch the ad, the MRC's guy monitoring the network, Tom Johnson, reported.

The transcript of the ad which shows black and white Vietnam-era photos in the background as video of the veterans, in color, plays in the foreground:

John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."
Al French: "I served with John Kerry."
Bob Elder: "I served with John Kerry."
George Elliott: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
Al French: "He is lying about his record."
Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."
Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star. I know, I was there, I saw what happened."
Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."
Admiral Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."
Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."
Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."
Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."
Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."
Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country. He most certainly did."
Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry. John Kerry cannot be trusted."
Announcer: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

That's posted at: www.swiftvets.com

To view the ad: www.swiftvets.com

Now, a more detailed rundown of Thursday night coverage, starting with CBS and its record of obfuscation of Kerry's Vietnam record while championing the vets who support him:

-- CBS. On the August 5 CBS Evening News, anchor John Roberts intoned: "A harsh new television ad that attacks John Kerry is being denounced as quote, 'dishonest and dishonorable' by a Bush supporter, Republican Senator John McCain. [Roberts talks over clip of ad] The ad features Vietnam veterans who question Kerry's war record, patriotism, and fitness to lead. McCain, himself a Vietnam POW, said the White House should condemn the ad put out by a veterans' group [end of ad video]. A presidential spokesman chose not to condemn the ad today, but emphasized that the Bush campaign had nothing to do with it, and does not question Kerry's war record."

Last Thursday night, before John Kerry's convention speech, Dan Rather set up a CBS Evening News story which showcase several pro-Kerry veterans: "Those who served with him in Indochina are still with him now. They are part of what goes on inside John Kerry. And it's tonight's 'Inside Story.' John Kerry went to war and came home a changed man. A decorated wounded warrior who became an anti-war leader." See: www.mediaresearch.org

That morning, in a glowing profile, Byron Pitts showed Kerry as an anti-Vietnam war protester in 1971 dramatically asking Senators, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake," but he gave no hint how Kerry alienated a great many Vietnam veterans by making unfounded charges of war crimes. CBS's entirely positive review of Kerry's life ended with some of the Kerry campaign's preferred "Band of Brothers" imagery:
"The day before his speech, Kerry crossed Boston Harbor with some of his crew mates from Vietnam. His band of brothers. They have one battle left. But tonight the loner will stand alone here in his hometown one more time and look to do what John F. Kerry has nearly always done -- find a way to win." See: www.mediaresearch.org

-- On July 22 Dan Rather prompted John Kerry to expound on how he's angry at President Bush for criticizing his Vietnam service while Bush avoided the war. Rather asked Kerry: "Have you ever had any anger about President Bush, who spent his time during the Vietnam War in the National Guard, running, in effect, a campaign that does its best to diminish your service in Vietnam?" Kerry replied, "Yup, I have been," and went on to confirm it "grates a little bit" and is "irritating." See: www.mrc.org

CBS News has steadfastly avoided the swift boat veterans, excerpt on the one occasion when CBS smeared them:

# April 22 CyberAlert: A lot more skeptical of Bush than Kerry on Vietnam-era service. Back on February 10 when the White House released George W. Bush's National Guard records, the networks stressed how they only "raise more questions." But with Kerry, the networks ignored for a week questions raised last week in the Boston Globe about whether he deserved one of his Purple Hearts, and then prompted by Kerry's release of his records finally got to the story on Wednesday, but were satisfied with the records despite the lack of documentation for his first Purple Heart. "We'll take 'A Closer Look' tonight at John Kerry's distinguished war record," ABC anchor Charles Gibson promised Wednesday night in stating as fact a claim that is in dispute. Gibson then shifted the burden to Kerry's critics: "His opponents are trying hard to use it against him." CBS didn't even consider Kerry newsworthy, but NBC and CNN ran stories. See: www.mediaresearch.org

# April 23 CyberAlert: CBS on Thursday night caught up with the Kerry campaign's release of his Vietnam military service records, but reporter Jim Stewart avoided the very allegation from Kerry's former commander -- that he really didn't suffer a combat wound for which he was awarded his first Purple Heart -- the charge that fueled the document release. Instead, anchor Dan Rather stressed how the records "show glowing evaluations of him during combat in the Vietnam War." Stewart reminded viewers of Kerry's Senate testimony 30 years ago and noted how "a lot of veterans got mad at Kerry," but avoided citing Kerry's most incendiary claims which so angered his comrades, that Americans regularly committed atrocities in Vietnam, as he asserted that Kerry is "still trying to explain the path that led him from war hero to anti-war activist." Stewart even painted Kerry as a victim, recalling how "Kerry suspected there would be a price" to pay for his anti-war activism. See: www.mediaresearch.org

# May 5 CyberAlert: CBS on Tuesday night tried to discredit some Vietnam veterans critical of John Kerry by impugning them as partisan activists tied to the Bush campaign, though the only link seems to be a public relations firm involved in the 2000 campaign, and tarring all of them with the supposed dirty work for Richard Nixon of one. Very McCarthyistic. FNC's Carl Cameron, however, managed to avoid innuendo as he undermined the credibility of specific vets by showing how in the past they had praised Kerry. CBS's Byron Pitts went back to 1971 as he recalled how John O'Neill, who debated Kerry about Vietnam on ABC's Dick Cavett Show, "was handpicked by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry." Pitts added, without any explanation, that "the press conference was set up by the same people who," in 2000, "tried to discredit John McCain's reputation in Vietnam service." Then Pitts connected the anti-Kerry veterans to a presumed nefarious "strategy" they had nothing to do with implementing: "It's the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam." See: www.mediaresearch.org


-- MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He teased his show, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? Swift Boat Veterans for Bush: The new high and low in the presidential ad campaign. They're swift boat veterans all right. It's just that, despite the title, none of them were on any of John Kerry's swift boats. Swift condemnation from John McCain and from even the White House."

Olbermann set up his lead segment: "Good evening. There has not been a daisy yet with its little girl and big mushroom cloud, nor one that uses a picture of Osama bin Laden in an attack on an incumbent Senator's record. But the ads of campaign 2004 just stepped up to a new level today -- or down to one -- with the release of an anti-John Kerry commercial that immediately brought the condemnation not merely of the Kerry campaign, but also of Republican Senator John McCain, and even generally and at a distance, the White House. Our fifth story on the Countdown, Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, 12 survivors of Vietnam in quick, surgically incisive sound bites explaining why John Kerry should not be President. In an ad already running in swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The implication of the name 'Swift Boat Veterans for Bush' is that the vets somehow served with John Kerry. The fact is not one of them was on either of his boats. The meaning of 'served with him' is literally 'they were in the same war he was.'"
Van Odell, Gunners Mate 2nd Class [from ad]: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know, I was there, I saw what happened."
Jack Chenoweth, Lieutenant J.G [from ad]: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."
Roy Hoffmann, Rear Admiral [from ad]: "John Kerry has not been honest-"
Adrian Lonsdale, Commander [from ad]: "-and he lacks the capacity to lead."
Larry Thurlow, Lieutenant J.G [from ad]: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."
Olbermann: "One of the vets who rips Kerry in this spot, George Elliott, praised him in 1996, calling Kerry's Vietnam swift boat pursuit of the enemy, quote, 'an act of courage.' There is a 13th speaker in the 60-second spot, Dr. Lewis Letson, claims, 'I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.' Kerry's campaign pointed out that none of the medical records concerning his injury are signed by a Dr. Letson, and there is no evidence he treated Kerry's wound. Kerry, of course, has not hesitated for a moment to bring his actual crewmates into this campaign as a theatrical element in as theatrical a way as possible. They stood beside him on the deck of the craft that took him to the Democratic Convention last week. They stood on the stage at the Fleet Center with him. One of them, Jean Thorsen, says of the ad today, 'These are assertions are garbage. These people were not there with John Kerry.' Another Vietnam vet went further. He called them dishonest and dishonorable. Republican Senator John McCain, who added that the ad was additionally distressing to him because it was similar to ones that attacked him during the Republican primary of 2000 and because this ad was created by the same agency that produced McCain's own advertising that year. But he reserved his greatest criticism for the White House [text on screen]. 'I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad,' McCain told reporters. 'I can't believe the President would pull such a cheap stunt.' In reply, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters, 'We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. We're calling for a cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity.' For Kerry's supporters, that was not, not surprisingly, enough."
Jim Rassmann, Vietnam Veteran: "I submitted John for the Silver Star for pulling me out of the water under fire. That is what happened. That's what the Navy agreed is what happened. If they felt otherwise, they should have brought this up 35 years ago."

Olbermann questioned his guest: "Well, why is this one worse than any other misdirecting unsubstantiated attack ad that is conveniently not directly traceable to the other candidate's campaign?"
Craig Crawford, MSNBC (and CBS News) political analyst, in Washington, DC: "Well, as lies go, it's just another lie, I suppose, but that is a pattern we've seen in this campaign, and ironically enough, because of McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance reform McCain himself put his name on. It allowed this unregulated world of independent soft money on ads attacking others."
Olbermann: "I am sensing, and I guess it's based in part on Senator McCain's reaction, that this one, though, for some reason, hit home harder than usual. Is it still possible to, despite McCain-Feingold, obviously the holes with which you can drive trucks or, at least, TV trucks through, that, that you can, in fact, make political ads so bad that even politicians will again try to reform this process?"
Crawford: "It's going to be a tough process to reform. We have this constitutional right, as the Supreme Court's found, that for these groups to do these things, so the only way to control it, I suppose, is if the beneficiary of an ad comes out and condemns it specifically. And I'm sorry, that quote we just read from the Bush campaign, that's no such thing."
Olbermann: "To those quotes, 'We want to discontinue all such unregulated soft money activity,' I'm paraphrasing Scott McClellan there. Is there also in that not nearly just not very much of a condemnation, kind of a courtesy condemnation, but is that also a, is something in political speak a message to the Kerry campaign that might translate along the lines of, 'Stop those folks over at MoveOn.org and all their ads about the President, or you will see more of these?"
Crawford: "Sure, I mean, this is an explicit message, I would say, to the Kerry camp on that because the Democrats have gained the most advantage from this loophole earlier in the year when Kerry hadn't raised enough money and the independent groups were attacking Bush, and that is equivalent to, at a ball game, you know, where the fans erupt in a brawl, and then steal the show. I mean, here you've got the fans on either side of the campaigns just causing such a stir, and it's not going to stop. We're going to see a lot of this sort of thing from here to November 2nd."

As for whether those in the ad "served with" Kerry, they were officers who mostly commanded other swift boats which patrolled alongside Kerry's boat and were based together. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has an interesting Web page with a photo from Vietnam of Kerry posing with 19 of his officer colleagues. Put your curser over it and all but Kerry and two of the men disappear. The two are the only ones of the 19 who are supporting Kerry. Go to: www.swiftvets.com

-- ABC's World News Tonight skipped the ad. Anchor Elizabeth Vargas set up ABC's campaign story: "Turning now to politics, the campaigns turned to talk of the 9/11 attacks today. Democratic challenger John Kerry criticized the way President Bush reacted in the first moments after the planes hit the towers. It did not take long for the Bush administration to fire back. ABC's Dan Harris is traveling with the Kerry campaign in Missouri tonight."

Dan Harris: "Senator Kerry's comment to a group of minority journalists this morning was the first time he's criticized the President's actions on September 11th. [video of Bush in classroom] When Mr. Bush was told about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center, he stayed in front of a class of children in Florida for upwards of seven minutes."
Kerry at UNITY: Journalists of Color conference: "I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to [loud applause from the journalists]. And I would have attended to it."
Harris: "Kerry aides later said the Senator was simply answering a question from the audience."
Scott McClellan on the road: "It's just sad to see Senator Kerry make such a comment, simply for political purposes, about one of the most tragic events in our nation's history."
Harris, over scenes from Fahrenheit 9/11 showing Bush hitting golf balls and riding in a golf cart: "The Bush campaign says Kerry was ‘taking his cues' from Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore ridicules the President for reading My Pet Goat while the towers burned."
Harris back on camera in Jefferson City: "The war on terror is a loaded political issue. But beyond the politics, there are genuine policy differences between the two candidates..."

Kerry got the question, and loud approving applause, at the conference in Washington, DC of the very liberal, every four year meeting of UNITY: Journalists of Color, made up of four groups of journalists: Asian American Journalists Association, National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the Native American Journalists Association. Its home page: www.unityjournalists.org

President Bush appeared Friday morning and got questions which were more hostile and received much more muted applause, C-SPAN and CNN coverage revealed.


-- CNN's NewsNight. Aaron Brown announced up top: "Good evening again. Here's a question to start the night. If someone makes an allegation in a political campaign, a serious allegation, should we report it simply because it's made? Is the allegation itself news? Let's say, for example, that someone alleges that a candidate had a drug problem at some point in his life. Should that allegation be reported if we don't know the truth of it or can't confirm any of it just because someone makes the charge? We actually dealt with this four years ago with one of the candidates for president. And we didn't report it because, though we tried to find the evidence, we could not. Was that the right call? Were we taking sides by not reporting the allegation? Should we just allow anyone to say anything and let the other side deny it and go home and call it a night? This is the political season, and some pretty nasty things are being said and will be said. Do you think we should report them all, throw in the denials and say we've done our job? That's a question for you to consider tonight."

Not sure what Brown means by how he "didn't report" on a candidate's past drug problem. In July/August 1999, that would be five years ago, when allegations about George W. Bush circulated, Brown was with ABC News and so maybe he personally didn't do anything on the matter, but ABC didn't hesitate to pick up on the rumors. As I recounted in an August 23, 1999 op-ed in the Washington Times:
"The drug questions were fueled in late July by a week-long profile of Mr. Bush in the Washington Post. Reporters Lois Romano and George Lardner insisted, 'We need to ask the cocaine question. We think you believe that a politician should not let stories fester. So why won't you just deny that you've used cocaine?' ABC invited Ms. Romano to be a guest on the July 27 edition of Good Morning America to dismiss Mr. Bush's answer: "He's basically declared that his life began at 40 and that we're supposed to not ask about that other fellow before 40 and I don't know if he can hold to that position."

For details on how all the networks jumped on the Bush drug use story, see: www.mediaresearch.org

Later, on Thursday's NewsNight, Brown introduced a full story on Kerry's comments about Bush and the seven minutes: "It's a potential minefield for both presidential candidates in an election in which 9/11 and national security are key issues: How to avoid to appear to be exploiting 9/11 for political gain? Dicey business made clear again today when Senator John Kerry spoke at a conference of minority journalists in Washington. Here's CNN's Dana Bash."
Bash began: "It's a memorable image of September 11th. The President is told America is under attack. Visibly stunned, he does not leave a Florida classroom. On a D.C. detour, John Kerry, responding to a question, said he would have acted differently."
John Kerry: "I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to. And I would have attended to it." [applause for the journalists]
Bash, over video of Bush in the classroom followed by film of Kerry in Vietnam: "Mr. Bush has said he was just trying to project a sense of calm until he had more information. Senator Kerry says being President is about having gut instincts in those situations, toughness he found on a battlefield. Hindsight is 20/20, but this is a candidate trying to fight a Bush campaign painting him as indecisive, not fit to lead, and a President Americans still see as best to fight terrorism. The President in Ohio didn't mention the swipe. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did, saying, quote, 'John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is arm chair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore.' The controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11 mocks the President for waiting seven minutes before responding. A Kerry spokeswoman says he never saw the film. On the trail, no surrender."
Kerry in Missouri: "I pledge to you, Missouri, I can fight a more effective, smarter and better war."
Bash concluded: "And like Bill Clinton and Al Gore before them, the senators John boarded Harry Truman's train hoping to capture the magic of his famous 1948 whistle-stop tour. Dana Bash, CNN, Jefferson City, Missouri."





Media Treat McCain Condemnation as More
Newsworthy than Charges

Friday morning newspapers and TV treated Senator John McCain's condemnation of the anti-Kerry ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as more newsworthy than the substance of the charges the network morning shows have ignored until now. "McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry on Vietnam War Record," declared a front page Washington Post headline over a story that in nearly 1,200 words didn't quote a word from the ad, but which noted in its second paragraph that the ad "was financed in part by a major Republican Party donor in Texas."

For the August 6 Post story: www.washingtonpost.com

"It's getting ugly out there," Today co-host Campbell Brown fretted before she asked Tim Russert: "Republican Senator John McCain, a Vietnam vet, has come out and said that, that ad is quote, 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Should the White House be doing the same thing or the Bush campaign, rather, be doing the same thing?"

Over on CBS's Early Show, Harry Smith emphasized how "Republican John McCain is defending Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry over a controversial ad campaign." Cynthia Bowers tried to discredit the ad: "This is not the first time this particular group of veterans has raised this issue and, in fact, most of the funding for this ad just happens to come from a Houston-based Republican."

ABC's Jake Tapper, on Good Morning America, seemed the least hostile to the ad, but he stressed how "the ad is so tough, even some top Republicans have come out against it." Tapper also recalled: "Running against Bush four years ago, McCain, too, saw his war record questioned by Bush allies, though then, as now, not by the Bush campaign itself."

CNN's American Morning brought aboard, for interviews conducted by Bill Hemmer, the anti-Kerry Bob Elder and the pro-Kerry Dal Sundusky.

Friday's New York Times carried an article by Jim Rutenberg headlined: "Anti-Kerry Ad Is Condemned by McCain." But unlike the Washington Post which ignored the ad on Thursday, the Times on Thursday had run a story about the new ads: "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry." That was penned by Jodi Wilgoren.

For the August 5 New York Times story: www.nytimes.com

For the August 6 New York Times article: www.nytimes.com

Now, a further rundown of the anti-Kerry ad coverage on the NBC, CBS and ABC morning shows, as provided by MRC analysts Geoff Dickens, Brian Boyd and Jessica Anderson:

-- NBC's Today. Co-host Campbell Brown teased: "And terror also took center stage in campaign 2004 on Thursday with John Kerry slamming President Bush for his actions on 9/11 drawing a fierce Republican response and this came as a new attack ad has emerged belittling Kerry's service in Vietnam. Is this a sign of things to come in the campaign? We're gonna talk to Tim Russert about that."

Brown set up the Russert segment: "Now to presidential politics where the gloves are off. On Thursday John Kerry slammed President Bush for his actions on 9/11 and a new attack ad was released questioning Kerry's service in Vietnam. Tim Russert is NBC News Washington bureau chief and moderator of Meet the Press. Tim, good morning."
Russert: "Good morning, Campbell."
Brown: "It's getting ugly out there. Let's start with this new attack ad. This is from a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, not put out by the Bush campaign. But I want to play a bit and get your reaction."
Clip of ad:
Lt. Commander Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because I treated him for that injury."
Van Odell, Gunners Mate 2nd Class: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star. I know, I was there. I saw what happened."
Lt. J.G. Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Brown, back live: "Tim, Republican Senator John McCain, a Vietnam vet, has come out and said that, that ad is quote, 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Should the White House be doing the same thing or the Bush campaign, rather, be doing the same thing?"
Russert: "Well they have been asked about it, Campbell. And what they've said is that, 'let's just stop all this independent campaign financing of these kinds of ads.' Which is interesting because if that happened John Kerry, because he's now taking federal money has not gone on the air until September would, in effect, be removed from the air waves. The interesting thing, I think to look at in this ad is it cuts to the core of John Kerry's candidacy. That he's an honored Vietnam veteran. The Democrats are quick to point out that the people who are seen in that ad did not specifically serve on the same boat as John Kerry and that it, it's being funded in large part by a Houston developer who had given President Bush money. The Republicans will counter saying it has nothing to do with the White House. But it is, it is, it is, it is a very tough, direct hit at John Kerry. One last thing Campbell. Democrats say, ‘Listen there are four people at the top of the national tickets. Only one served in the active military during Vietnam, only one volunteered to go to Vietnam and his name is John Kerry."

Brown moved on to the seven minutes: "Tim, let's turn to another issue. The, uh, Kerry has faulted Bush for a scene that people are familiar with from Fahrenheit 9/11. When the President was sitting in a Florida classroom reading to school children in the moments after the attacks and Kerry says, well we have a soundbite actually. Let me play the bite and get your reaction."
John Kerry at UNITY: Journalists of Color: "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack.' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to. And I would've attended-"
Brown: "Tim, the Republican reaction to that coming from Rudy Giuliani who says, 'John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore. John Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the war on terror.' Should this issue even be part of this debate?"
Russert: "I was surprised when John Kerry raised it, Campbell. Because it is taken from the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11. Many of the Democrats I speak to think it plays to the converted. People who are upset by George Bush's handling of September 11th are already gonna vote against George Bush. Will it affect independent swing voters? That's an open question. But it tells you about the intensity of this campaign around one central issue: Who is better fit to serve as commander- in-chief? Whether it's the criticism of John Kerry's Vietnam record or the criticism of George Bush's action on September 11th."
Brown: "Quickly Tim. You had both campaigns out on the road this week but also enormous amount of attention on these new terror threats. Who won the week?"
Russert: "Well it's pretty tough Campbell. What happened, I think, after the rollout of the Democratic convention everything just froze with the announcement of the terror alerts. And people in both campaigns believe that any time you are talking about terror, rather than the economy it's a net plus for the Republicans and the Bush White House. But this race is still too close to call."

-- CBS's The Early Show didn't get to the story until the 8am news. Harry Smith announced: "Republican John McCain is defending Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry over a controversial ad campaign. CBS News correspondent Cynthia Bowers is following the Kerry campaign. She's in Kansas City this morning. Good morning, Cynthia."

Bowers explained: "Good morning, Harry. This is not the first time this particular group of veterans has raised this issue and, in fact, most of the funding for this ad just happens to come from a Houston based Republican."
George Elliott in ad: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
Bowers: "The 60 second spot scheduled to run in small markets in three swing states: Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, features Vietnam swift boat veterans who challenge John Kerry's war record."
John Kerry in stump speech: "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president of the United States."
Bowers: "The Kerry camp, which has used his service in Vietnam as a major selling point, calls the commercial ‘an inflammatory outrageous lie' and in a letter to local TV stations asks them to pull it. Communications director Stephanie Cutter says the American people deserve better."
Stephanie Cutter, Kerry-Edwards campaign: "I think the American people are tired of these misleading attack ads by the Bush-Cheney campaign. We need to talk about real issues."
Bob Elder in ad: "John Kerry is no war hero."
Bowers: "The timing of the commercial coincides with the August 15th release of this book: Unfit for Command, which questions Kerry's status as a war hero. Republican Senator John McCain, a war hero himself, denounced the ad as 'dishonest and dishonorable'. And points out a similar tactic was used against him four years ago during his contentious primary race against George Bush."
McCain to Bush in 2000 debate: "I don't know how, if you can understand this, George, but that really hurts."
Bowers: "He called on the White House, Thursday, to condemn the practice."
Bush: "That's what I'm here asking for, for four more years."
Bowers: "The Bush administration declined to do that but rather called for an end to the campaign finance reform loophole that helps fund these attack ads, a number of which have targeted the President."
Scott McClellan, White House press secretary: "We've called for an immediate cessation of these ads and we hope Senator Kerry will join us."
Bowers: "The Kerry camp is taking a wait and see approach to that challenge, Harry. But for now, some TV stations have already agreed to pull the ad."

-- ABC's Good Morning America. Near the end of the 7am half hour, Diane Sawyer asserted: "Well, this morning, we're turning now to a new hot potato being passed around on the campaign trail, a group of Vietnam veterans casting a shadow on John Kerry's war record, and ABC's Jake Tapper has a report on all this from Washington. Jake."

Tapper began: "Good morning, Diane. Well, these anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans have launched a very controversial new ad in a few key battleground states, slamming John Kerry's record as a soldier. The ad is so tough, even some top Republicans have come out against it. It is a harsh attack on perhaps the most compelling aspect of John Kerry, his decorated service in Vietnam. The ad calls him a bad leader who lied to get his medals." [clip from ad] But in an exclusive interview with ABC News, Republican Senator and decorated Vietnam veteran John McCain had harsh words for the ad."
Senator John McCain: "I condemn the ads as dishonest and dishonorable and I think it's very, very wrong."
Tapper: "Running against Bush four years ago, McCain, too, saw his war record questioned by Bush allies, though then, as now, not by the Bush campaign itself. McCain says that's irrelevant, but he issued a challenge to President Bush."
McCain: "I hope that the President will also condemn it."
Tapper: "So far he has not. These anti-Kerry activists have been attacking Kerry relentlessly for months."
Larry Thurlow, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "In my estimation, he was not a war hero and he certainly wasn't a strong leader, two of the things that he's used as a central platform for his campaign."
Tapper: "But none of them served with Kerry on his boat. His actual crewmates reject their charges."
David Alston: "To me it's disgusting."
Del Sandusky: "John Kerry earned every one of those medals."
Unidentified crewmate: "What boat were you riding on? Because you weren't there, we were."
Tapper: "The Kerry campaign calls it dirty politics and notes two of the veterans from the ad praised Kerry's war record eight years ago. Here's one of them, George Elliott in 1996."
George Elliott: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage."
Tapper: "And here he is today."
Elliott, in ad: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
Tapper concluded: "So who's behind all this? Democrats want you to know that some top Texas Republicans are funding the group, though the Bush campaign insists it has nothing to do with the group of anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans. For its part, the group says it will keep going until November and maybe even beyond."

Is John Kerry The New Democrat Golden Boy?

This article goes back to the primaries, but there are 2 paragraphs here of note. I highlighted them in red, ( an appropriate color as you will see). Seems the poodle has a penchant for supporting communist governments. In this case, seems some one close to kerry profitted enormously. - Sailor.




Is John Kerry The New Democrat Golden Boy?
By Barbara Stock (01/26/2004)

The good citizens of Iowa handed Richard Gephardt a shocking loss and they put the oft-times raging Howard Dean into a nearly hysterical state. Iowa also presented Senator John Kerry with a huge surprise win. Kerry left Iowa for New Hampshire as the odds-on favorite to win the Democrat nomination.

Senator Kerry often speaks of his war record and his military service during the Vietnam war. No one doubts that he served and by most accounts, served well. Kerry was also awarded the distinctive honor of a Silver Star. But some questions linger.

The Silver Star is awarded to those who have exhibited ''gallantry in action'' while in combat with an enemy of the United States.

It's true that Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry was in combat. Indeed, his boat had been fired upon by the enemy. Kerry beached his boat and an enemy soldier broke and ran. Tom Belodeau, one of the boat's gunners, admitted this enemy soldier was wounded in the attack. Lt. Kerry then chased the wounded man behind a ''hootch'' where he ''finished him off.'' It was for this action that he was awarded the prestigious Silver Star.

There were some who felt this act was not deserving of such an honor. Dan Carr, a Marine who served 14 months in Vietnam, questioned whether such an honor should have been bestowed on a man who killed a retreating and wounded enemy soldier.

When young Kerry returned to the States, he began protesting against the Vietnam War. On April 23, 1971, Kerry testified before Congress about atrocities he had allegedly seen and heard about. He testified that American soldiers ''raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [had] blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.'' He stated there never was a communist threat in Vietnam.

He joined a group called ''Vietnam Vets against the War.'' This group eventually abandoned him because the members realized that he was using their cause as a platform for his own personal gain. He was making it appear as though American soldiers were out-of-control animals, rampaging across Vietnam torturing and killing for sport. This was not their message. They were protesting the war. They weren’t accusing their fellow soldiers of being murderers and rapists. They had not seen any of the behavior Kerry stated he witnessed. One member remarked that Kerry seemed to be making it up to give people what they wanted to hear.

Recently, Senator Kerry gave a speech at a Vietnam War Memorial, and many of the veterans turned their backs to him and walked away. They saw him as the man who called them war criminals in his testimony before Congress. The man who received the Silver Star for killing a wounded, retreating enemy soldier, had accused them of hideous war crimes.

Michael Benge, a Viet Nam POW from 1968 to 1973, wants Americans to know that it was Kerry who blocked ''The Vietnam Human Rights Act.'' (HR-2833) Benge believes that action gave Hanoi the green light to ignore violations of human rights with the blessing of the United States.

Senator Kerry can often be heard making the statement that the Bush Administration is controlled solely by ''special interests.'' Of course, he is untouched by this disease that he says permeates the Republican Party.

The senator was the head of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1992. He pushed vigorously to normalize relations with Vietnam. He visited Vietnam and praised them for being open and reported he was convinced they were not holding American POWs. Many families didn’t believe him then and don’t believe him now. But why would he be so anxious to normalize relations with the former enemy?

The answer is special interests and money. Collier's International, based in Boston, was immediately awarded the exclusive contract to rebuild Vietnam’s infrastructure by the Vietnamese government. They made tens of millions of dollars from the contract. The chief executive officer of Collier's International was a man named C. Stewart Forbes. Interestingly, Senator Kerry’s middle name is Forbes. There is a reason for that. C. Stewart Forbes is John Kerry’s cousin.

The New Yorker Magazine touted Kerry as the senator who defeated the ''mendacious POW lobby.'' Yes, Kerry helped defeat those tenacious family members who wanted to know what happened to their missing loved ones. His strange bedfellow in this battle against POW families was none other than fellow Senator and former POW John McCain.

This committee’s final report in 1993 was chilling. It determined that American POWs were left alive in Viet Nam after the war but felt none were still alive. It makes no attempt to identify those left behind, how they died, who killed them, and where their remains are located. They were abandoned in life and death.

Is Senator Kerry in full support of our intelligence gathering capabilities? His voting record indicates he is not.

In 1994/95, Kerry proposed a bill to gut $1.5 billion from intelligence and freeze spending for two major intelligence programs--the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence Program. (S. 1826) That bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was retooled, the amount dropped to $1 billion, and it was finally defeated as S. Amendment 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

He voted to cut 80 million from the FBI budget. (HR-2076)

In 1997, Kerry felt there that were no threats to the United States. This prompted him to place this statement in the Congressional Record: ''Now that the [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?'' (Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

Twelve days after 9/11, Senator Kerry had the nerve to make this statement: ''And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. …we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' (CBS’s ''Face the Nation,'' 9/23/01)

After spending years trying to lay waste to our intelligence capabilities, succeeding at times, and failing at times, he now preaches about how our intelligence community was negligent.

In ''Golden Boy--Part Two,'' his abysmal record on supporting the military will be covered.




Barbara is a Registered Nurse who is branching out to political writing. She has had several articles posted on numerous political pages.

Chinese Kerry Out: John Kerry's Private Trade Trip to Beijing

Looks like the poodle is really wowing the commies. First the CPUSA endorsement, then the Socialist Party, now kerry is sucking up the the Chinese. So very Clintonesque! Seems he also has the ChiCom endorsement. These must be some of those "foriegn" leaders that kerry claims want him to win. Oh Brother! - Sailor




Chinese Kerry Out: John Kerry's Private Trade Trip to Beijing
Posted August 6, 2004
By Charles R. Smith


John Kerry took time to pose in Beijing´s Great Hall of the People.


The Kerry campaign currently is struggling with recent photographs of the candidate, one dressed in a "bunny" suit at NASA and another on the bow of a ferry imitating a famous scene from the movie Titanic. However, a new photograph has emerged showing the Massachusetts senator in Beijing, People's Republic of China, working with a company associated with the Chinese military. The Kerry campaign and the Kerry Senate office both are refusing to comment on the Democratic presidential candidate's privately sponsored trade trip to China. Repeated phone calls both to Kerry's campaign headquarters and his Senate office were not returned.



During the late 1990s, John Kerry traveled on a "U.S. trade mission to the People's Republic of China organized and sponsored by a private corporation." The Kerry trip to Beijing was topped off with a "banquet in Beijing's legendary Great Hall of the People." To prove the trip was a success, the Massachusetts-based firm of Boston Capital & Technology photographed Kerry in the Beijing Great Hall of the People. The image and trip information appear at www.us-china.com, Boston Capital's Website

The photo shows Kerry, an unnamed Chinese government official and Paul Marcus, the head of Boston Capital & Technology. Marcus also refused to provide details of the China trip, including the time and date, whether the senator took money for his services, or the identity of the Chinese officials with whom Kerry met. "I am not doing an interview with you, and please don't call me again," Marcus declared.

The chief of Boston Capital and his Chinese-born wife, Moying Li, live in the same Beacon Hill district of Boston as Kerry, who used his half-interest in the family mansion to borrow $6.4 million to save his then-faltering presidential campaign.

While Marcus currently refuses to comment on the private trade trip to China, he does advertise his connection to Sen. Kerry on Boston Capital's Website, where Marcus claims that his firm was "China Advisor to U.S. Senator's commercial agenda for China." The Website goes on to says that Boston Capital: "Advised, assisted, and executed Minister-level commercial agenda for U.S. Senator. Advanced Senator in China for all Minister-level meetings, coordinated and acted as liaison to: The U.S. State Department, The U.S. Embassy in Beijing, The Department of Commerce, and all relevant Chinese authorities."

The Chinese Army Bank: In fact, Marcus is a business partner with the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), a firm closely associated with the Chinese military and included on the Website a picture of himself meeting with CITIC officials in China. "Boston Capital & Technology is a bilateral contractual affiliate of both the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), China's largest trade organization, and the China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC), China's largest investment organization," the Website says.

CITIC is known as a front for the munitions manufacturer Poly Technologies Corp. According to a 1997 report prepared by the Rand Corporation, "Poly Technologies Ltd. was founded in 1984, ostensibly as a subsidiary of CITIC, although it was later exposed to be the primary commercial arm of the PLA [People's Liberation Army] General Staff Department's Equipment Sub-Department." The Rand report continues: "Throughout the 1980s, Poly sold hundreds of millions of dollars of largely surplus arms around the world, exporting to customers in Thailand, Burma, Iran, Pakistan and the United States. ... CITIC does enter into business partnerships with and provide logistical assistance to PLA and defense-industrial companies like Poly."

The Rand report notes that CITIC's Poly Group once tried to smuggle machine guns into the United States: "Poly's U.S. subsidiaries were abruptly closed in August 1996. Allegedly, Poly's representative, Robert Ma, conspired with China North Industries Corporation's (NORINCO) representative, Richard Chen, and a number of businessmen in California to illegally import 2,000 AK-47s into the United States."

Poly Technologies was run by international arms dealer Wang Jun and his "princeling" friend, the powerful He Ping, son-in-law of long-time Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. The Rand Corporation noted that "Wang Jun is both director of CITIC and Chairman of Poly Group, the arms-trading company of the General Staff Department."

In 1996, Poly Chairman Wang Jun met with President Bill Clinton inside the White House with convicted Chinagate figure Charlie Trie, who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign from Red Chinese sources. The Democratic Party later returned much of this donated money.

Satellites for China: While CITIC is reported by U.S. military authorities to be involved in the international sale of illegal arms it also is interested in obtaining advanced U.S. technology. The Boston Capital Website notes that the firm has been involved with the transfer of advanced U.S. space technology to China. Such references are viewed in the arms trade to have missile applications.

According to the Boston Capital Website, the company acted as a China adviser for a "U.S. High Technology Corporation's technology-transfer efforts in the People's Republic of China. They were responsible for technology transfer for full-scale manufacturing in China of technologies in telecommunications and satellites. ... Each production package sells for $15 [million] to $20 million. The Corporation has successfully transferred these [satellite] technologies to several Chinese manufacturers now in production."

It should come as no surprise that Marcus' partner in Beijing, CITIC, also owns a controlling interest in the Hong Kong-based Asia Satellite Telecom Co. Ltd. (AsiaSat). Founded in 1988, AsiaSat operates several communications satellites in the Far East bought from U.S. manufacturers including Hughes. According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, in addition to direct TV broadcasts, AsiaSat satellites regularly carry communications traffic for Chinese military units and Chinese military-owned companies.

Sweet Deal Turns Sour: Not all of the Marcus projects in Communist China have turned out so sweet. In 1998 the U.S. Department of Agriculture gave Marcus a $77,000 contract to produce a report on the cranberry market in China. By 2001, Marcus had spun the contract and report into a deal to put Massachusetts-based Ocean Spray in business with China's largest juice company, perhaps looking to find markets and perhaps outsourcing a traditional American industry.

According to an article published in March 2001 by the Beijing Business Wire, "Under an agreement with the Beijing Huiyuan Beverage Group, Ocean Spray, the number-one brand of canned and bottled juice drinks in the U.S., will grant a 10-year license to Huiyuan for the Ocean Spray brand and technology." The official Beijing business report stated that Ocean Spray "made its initial contact with Huiyuan through the consulting firm Boston Capital & Technology, which had a personal working relationship with its chairman, Zhu. Their rapport with Huiyuan management helped secure the agreement."

Critics of the Ocean Spray deal quickly warned that Huiyuan Beverage readily could become a global competitor. According to the Huiyuan Website, the Chinese beverage company imported more than 40 advanced sterile filling lines, and set up two juice-extracting plants and six filling factories. The cranberry deal with China turned sour. Today, Ocean Spray officials refuse to comment on the 2001 China deal with Huiyuan. Ocean Spray no longer lists Huiyuan as a partner or as an official outlet of its products. In fact, Ocean Spray does not list any outlet for its products in China, and China is a major producer of cranberries and a major juice competitor.

Many Faces, No Answers: Who Marcus was working for in the juice case is not entirely clear, but he has completed several other sweet deals. Marcus is the founder of a number of firms that do business with Beijing, including not only Boston Capital & Technology but Boston Business Consulting, Massachusetts-Guangdong Committee Inc. and China Development Holdings Ltd.

The Marcus business savvy also extends far beyond China. He once sold the Webpage name bbc.com to the British Broadcasting Corp. for about $350,000. The Boston-based consultant also has time for the arts. He and his wife are listed as founders of the nonprofit American Friends of the National Gallery of the Cayman Islands, a lovely place notorious for hiding and laundering money.

John Kerry frequently has stated that he has had contacts with high-ranking officials of foreign governments. Yet, the Kerry campaign is refusing to answer any questions about the candidate's privately sponsored trade trip to China or his relationship with Marcus. But it would appear that the presidential candidate has many friends at high levels in Beijing. The Chinese official Internet news outlet of the People's Daily, official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, recently endorsed the senator from Massachusetts for president of the United States.

Charles R. Smith is an investigative reporter specializing in military and information technology.

Kerry Iraq Documentary

A definite MUST see! Here are some commnets on this documentary. - Sailor



"I urge Ed to show to every American because I think every American should see this..." -- Fmr. NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani

"Awesome! Every American must see!"
-- Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)

"Powerful..." -- Kenneth Lovett, New York Post

"Devastating..." -- Morton Kondracke, Roll Call

Kerry on Iraq

New York Times - DNC Propaganda Tool?

Just a few days ago the New York Times was claiming that the Bush Administration was using the most recent terror threat as a political tool. As more information came to light, even the Times had to print the following article. Seems to this Sailor that the Times is nothing more then a propaganda tool for the DNC, printing what ever they can, factual or not that the DNC perceives will hurt the President. Then when found to be wrong, attempting to back away from it. - Sailor


August 5, 2004
Qaeda Strategy Is Called Cause for New Alarm
By ERIC LIPTON and BENJAMIN WEISER

ASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - They scouted the streets. They took photographs. They wrote detailed surveillance reports. And then, after five years of patiently waiting, Al Qaeda operatives carried out the devastating suicide truck bombing at the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, in August 1998, killing more than 200 people and injuring thousands.

This meticulous approach to terrorism - studying targets and fine-tuning strategies for years before an attack - is in part why officials in Washington say they are so alarmed about the latest evidence of reconnaissance of financial centers in New York, New Jersey and Washington, even though much of the information dates back to the days before Sept. 11, 2001.

The same studied technique has been central to the most well-known Qaeda attacks, be they in Africa or the United States. Plots that were carried out and failed, and even plots that were considered but abandoned, like a possible attack on the Brooklyn Bridge last year, each demonstrate this same obsession. It is Al Qaeda's hallmark.

"Al Qaeda will wait years to act and decades to succeed," Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor who has been investigating Osama bin Laden for about a decade, told the 9/11 commission this summer.

Investigators also know that even after extensively considering and then dismissing a possible target, the terrorists have simply switched their focus to another location, which may explain the intense precautions imposed around the Capitol this week, even though it is not publicly known whether it was among the buildings that were subjected to surveillance.

It is an appreciation of this modus operandi, which is evident in an examination of a decade's worth of plotting and action by Al Qaeda, that has so complicated the decision on how to respond appropriately to evidence that might be dated. Old information is not necessarily bad information. It might just be a hint of a plot that in a somewhat revised form was close to being carried out.

"The dry runs, the surveillance, the documentation, also going to the trouble of putting this information on computers and on disks, it shows the degree of thoroughness," said Neil Herman, a former supervisor of the F.B.I.'s Joint Terrorist Task Force in New York. "And by being as thorough as possible, ultimately they have been successful."

Federal authorities have not made public the recently discovered surveillance reports of financial institutions, which they say were found in Pakistan; and one F.B.I. official cautioned on Wednesday that the authorities are not even certain that the surveillance reports themselves represent an active plot.

But officials said this week that a second strand of intelligence indicating the possibility of a terrorist attack in New York made the situation urgent, given Al Qaeda's track record of long-term surveillance and planning, and promoted the elevation of the terrorism alert.

Moreover, the descriptions officials have offered of the surveillance reports - that they were devoted to individual targets, ran about 20 pages, were found on computer discs, and included a stunning level of detail - seem eerily reminiscent of instructions in a Qaeda training manual that was seized by the authorities in the home of one Qaeda operative in Manchester, England.

"Winning the battle is dependent on knowing the enemy's secrets," the manual declares in sections devoted to espionage and "information gathering" using open and covert methods.

The manual describes in great detail the sort of information that is to be collected while monitoring a target: traffic directions, street widths, location of signals and pedestrian areas, times of traffic congestion, proximity of public parks, and the amount and location of lighting. "The brother should draw a diagram of the area," the manual adds. "The drawing should be realistic so that someone who never saw the location could visualize it."

Al Qaeda's painstaking preparations for attacks first emerged publicly after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa. As early as 1993, the investigation found, Mr. bin Laden sent a trusted aide to Nairobi to conduct surveillance on American, British, French and Israeli targets.

The aide, Ali A. Mohamed, an Egyptian with American citizenship, was an all-purpose operative for Mr. bin Laden, court testimony and investigative records show. He spoke English, traveled freely around the world, and assisted with Mr. bin Laden's security. A veteran of the Egyptian and American armies, Mr. Mohamed also trained Qaeda operatives in surveillance and intelligence collection techniques, even how to take photographs without holding a camera up to one's eyes, one of his former students, a Qaeda member who later became a government witness, has testified.

The former Qaeda member, L'Houssaine Kherchtou, recalled that there were trial runs in Peshawar, Pakistan, to practice their surveillance. "We started with small things," Mr. Kherchtou said, "like bridge, like stadium, like normal places in which nobody is, and then in the second stage, we went to police stations, for example, and in my group, we were trained to go to Iranian consulate and Iranian cultural center."

No details were to be spared, he added. If they were to learn about a specific room, they were to scout "the walls, the colors, how big are the walls and which color are they, and how high they are, the lights, the doors, the floor, everything that you can see, all information about that room."

Operatives were trained to file detailed surveillance reports on computer, and to "put them in a disc so as to be easy to carry," Mr. Kherchtou said.

The embassy plot in Nairobi began in late 1993 with a consideration of a variety of possible targets: the American Embassy, the United States agricultural office, as well as the French Embassy and cultural center, all of which Mr. Mohamed cased.

"I took pictures, drew diagrams, and wrote a report," Mr. Mohamed said in court when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2000. This trove of surveillance reports and photographs were then presented directly to Mr. bin Laden back in Khartoum.

"Bin Laden looked at the picture of the American Embassy and pointed to where a truck could go as a suicide bomber," Mr. Mohamed said.

The Nairobi investigation also showed that surveillance and the selection of targets are just the initial phases in a Qaeda plot, and that other operatives, acting perhaps months or years later, will then execute the attack. Such tactics are one reason why investigators were so alarmed by the discovery of the surveillance reports of financial institutions, even though they were three or four years old. Such evidence could suggest Al Qaeda is just that much further down the line to launching an attack.

"There is a point were they have done surveillance, developed the plot, and have logistics support in place," an F.B.I. official said on Wednesday.

Such attention to detail, the willingness to wait for the opportune moment to attack, and the capacity to revise strategies if necessary, has been illustrated in other Qaeda operations. The preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks have been well documented, such as the hijackers' use of small rented aircraft to conduct pre-strike reconnaissance flights near the Pentagon and their cross-country surveillance flights to determine such things as the best time to storm the cockpit.

But the pattern extends far beyond these most spectacular incidents. A failed plot in 1995, hatched in the Philippines, to bomb 12 United States commercial jets as they flew over the Pacific unraveled only after extensive planning and even trial runs. One of the conspirators in the plot - nicknamed Bojinka - was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who later helped to mastermind the Sept. 11 attacks, investigators have said.

The conspirators in the Bojinka plot did the same careful planning, including casing flights from the Philippines to Hong Kong and Seoul. The prime orchestrator of the plot was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who also led the 1993 bombing on the World Trade Center.

The conspirators went to the extreme of testing a bomb at a Manila movie theater in December 1994, and later on a Philippine Airlines flight, all as part of preparation for the main offensive, which was set to take place in January 1995. The conspirators even tried dousing toy dolls with a home-made explosive that they were considering smuggling onto the planes. The plan was foiled when neighbors noticed smoke emanating from the Manila apartment where they lived - they were burning chemicals to make the ingredients for the bombs - and a security guard noticed Mr. Yousef running down the stairs carrying his shoes, records from Mr. Yousef's trial say.

Even though the large-scale jetliner attack over the Pacific never happened, it is clear that the elaborate planning was an unappreciated warning of the sophistication and determination of the terrorists.

"It showed the government back in the mid-1990's how detail-oriented these individuals were," said Mr. Herman, the former F.B.I. official, who was involved in the Bojinka investigation. "It also showed that there was an active network, although, of course, we were unable to determine the extent of the network back then."

The bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in October 2000 followed four years of contemplation and plotting. The conception came in 1996 when a Qaeda member, during a visit to his home in Yemen, noticed that American and other foreign ships frequented the waters on the coast of Yemen, according to the 9/ 11 commission report. The formal planning began in late 1998, with operatives being sent to Yemen to scout for ships that could be possible targets.

When they failed to find United States Navy ships on the western coast of Yemen, Mr. bin Laden reportedly redirected them to the southern shore, the commission report says. In January 2000, a guided missile destroyer, The Sullivans, was identified and a Qaeda boat went out for the attack. But the Qaeda boat sank under its own weight before it could strike the ship.

The authorities did not detect the failed assault on The Sullivans, and the terrorists were able to regroup, salvage the explosives and strengthen the hull of the boat to attack the Cole ten months later, killing 17 and injuring at least 40.

Such persistence, even if a first effort fails as in Yemen, does not mean that Al Qaeda pursues every plot to its destructive end.

Al Qaeda's planning to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge started in the spring of 2002, according to a federal court statement signed by Iyman Faris, a Pakistan native who pleaded guilty last year to the conspiracy. (Mr. Faris, who has since been sentenced in the attack, has tried to rescind his guilty plea).

Mr. Faris, who worked as a truck driver after immigrating to the United States in 1994, had met Mr. bin Laden at a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000, court records show. After he was asked to pursue a strike against the bridge, he spent nearly a year researching the kinds of gas torches that might be used to try to cut the bridge's suspension cables, and he traveled from his home in Ohio to examine the span.

It was only after inspecting the bridge - whose main cables are more than 15 inches in diameter and contain 19 individual strands, each of which contains 280 separate wires - that he reported back to his Qaeda contact that "the weather is too hot," a coded signal to indicate that the plot was not likely to succeed.Now, with investigators having recovered the extensive surveillance reports on financial centers in New York and elsewhere, a critical question remains: is Al Qaeda still pursuing a plot, has it revised it, or abandoned it?

"If you are looking for fingerprints, that is one,'' an American intelligence official said on Wednesday, of the detailed surveillance. "It is completely consistent with they way they operate. It is one of the things you look for, not the only, not decisive, but it is one.''


Eric Lipton reported from Washington, and Benjamin Weiser from New York.