Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community

sasser

Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sasser

  1. Pakistan For Bush.

    PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise? by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari Printer friendly Post date 07.29.04 | Issue date 07.19.04 E-mail this article [Editor's Note: This afternoon, Pakistan's interior minister, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, announced that Pakistani forces had captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda operative wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The timing of this announcement should be of particular interest to readers of The New Republic. Earlier this month, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman, and Massoud Ansari broke the story of how the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistani officials to apprehend high-value targets (HVTs) in time for the November elections--and in particular, to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Although the capture took place in central Pakistan "a few days back," the announcement came just hours before John Kerry will give his acceptance speech in Boston.] ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda. This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said. This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.) A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. he Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform. But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole." Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line. Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters. But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can." Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake. Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi. John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR. Massoud Ansari is a senior reporter for Newsline, a leading Pakistani news magazine.
  2. So is this the way Bush plans on winning 4 more years of misery for the American people he has lied to??? President Bush has promised his administration is "doing everything we can" to fight the War on Terror.[1] He has also said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks"[2] and said, "whether they happened in the White House or happened in the administration or happened on Capitol Hill [leaks] can be very damaging."[3] But according to a new report, the White House's leak of secret information for its own political gain has undermined the War on Terror because it allowed key al Qaeda suspects to escape. According to government and security officials, the disclosure by the White House "of the arrest of an al Qaeda computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama bin Laden's terror network to escape." Specifically, the White House told the media it had apprehended Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer who the administration said was a terrorist.[4] But according to MSNBC, Khan was a key intelligence source for U.S. and Pakistani authorities and "had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives."[5] In other words, the White House blew the cover of a U.S. intelligence mole in order to publicly justify raising the terror alert level one week after the Democratic National Convention. In the process, it allowed terrorists who threaten America to evade capture. If there was any doubt about who leaked Khan's name and compromised U.S. national security, those were put to rest this weekend. On CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted it was the Bush administration that leaked Khan's name.[6] Sources.... 1. President's Remarks at Marquette, Michigan Rally http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040713-9.html 2. President Discusses National, Economic Security in Cabinet Meeting http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-2.html 3. President Holds Press Conference http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031028-2.html 4. Leak allowed al-Qaeda suspects to escape http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08-10-pakistan-intel_x.htm 5. Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0807-02.htm 6. Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/08/le.00.html Way to further your efforts to win an election. Creating more fear... By using a leak, allowing terrorists to escape to enrich your own personal gain to win votes. You're an asshole.
  3. Michael Moore has NEVER said that conservatives are evil, lying scum. Igloo has (about liberals). Michael Moore has never called for hatred of minorities. Igloo has. Michael Moore gives Democrats just as much criticism as he gives Republicans. Igloo thinks Republican are God's gift to the planet and Democrats are Terrorists. Yes, Igloo does refer to liberals as "terrorists". Michael Moore says that if we can just talk openly about things, a lot of our problems would be solved. Igloo thinks the only way to solve problems is to outlaw Democracy.
  4. Brothers Band Together Against Kerry

    http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=237858
  5. Brothers Band Together Against Kerry

    *raises hand* Hey lamb chop.. will YOU serve? Will you let your kids serve?? Should I locate you and bring a recruiter to your home??? And go Mursa!! Way to get under his skin.
  6. Congratulations. You just won yourself the starring role in "Lifestyles of the clueless and brainless". Before you retort to your usual insults when you KNOW you don't have an arguement which only draws to the conclusion that the opposite view (myself) has once again beat you, read this transcript where Condoleezza Rice admitted it was the Bush administration that leaked Khan's name. That was from an interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/08/le.00.html In fact you should click on all the links before you open your sewerhole because you are only making yourself out to be the fool. "I suggest you read it again, specifically try to understand how "political" is defined , and how it is applied to Bush's specific actions of releasing sensitive information...........try to focus on the "why" of that action, and the "why" it lead them to do that......think hard schmuckboy...." This is advice you should take upon yourself wholeheartedly. You know, research beyond the realm of Faux News will be essential for you to actually grow a brain instead of acting like a child, brainless one. Your immaturity amuses me. Thanx once again for the laugh.
  7. cp presidential election poll '04...

    I certainly wouldn't.
  8. PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise? by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari Post date: 07.29.04 Issue date: 07.19.04 [ Editor's Note: This afternoon, Pakistan's interior minister, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, announced that Pakistani forces had captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda operative wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The timing of this announcement should be of particular interest to readers of The New Republic. Earlier this month, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman, and Massoud Ansari broke the story of how the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistani officials to apprehend high-value targets (HVTs) in time for the November elections--and in particular, to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Although the capture took place in central Pakistan "a few days back," the announcement came just hours before John Kerry will give his acceptance speech in Boston. ] ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda. This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said. This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.) A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. he Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform. But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole." Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line. Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters. But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can." Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake. Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi. John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR. Massoud Ansari is a senior reporter for Newsline, a leading Pakistani news magazine
  9. Igloo... You are pathetic! Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004 WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals. But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book. Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives. Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. ''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here." Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report. The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief. While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts." Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book. It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement. Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star. In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant that he had shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, ''No, absolutely not," adding that the enemy had been running to a hut for cover, where he could have destroyed Kerry's boat and killed the crew. The forthcoming book is coauthored by Jerome R. Corsi and John O'Neill, a former Vietnam naval officer who in 1971 debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, challenging Kerry's assertion that US atrocities had been widespread in Vietnam. O'Neill met with then-President Richard M. Nixon for an hour before debating Kerry, and his efforts were encouraged by Nixon's aides. O'Neill could not be reached for comment yesterday. President Bush's campaign denied working with O'Neill on the book or with the producers of the television advertisement. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, urged Bush yesterday to disassociate himself from what he called a ''dishonest and dishonorable" attack. In response, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, ''We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam." The Associated Press reported yesterday that Houston home-builder Bob J. Perry, a major Republican donor, gave at least $100,000 to the organization sponsoring the ad, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said none of those in the ad had served on a boat with Kerry. ''Some of these men defended John Kerry's honor on his military record in 1996 and so they were either lying then or lying now," Meehan said. ''Either way, it is gutter politics." The book also raises questions about the action of March 13, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart, according to an advance chapter of the book. The anti-Kerry group provided three affidavits from veterans on nearby boats questioning aspects of the award. On that day, Kerry rescued James Rassmann, who went overboard as a result of an explosion. Rassmann appeared by Kerry's side during the Iowa caucus campaign and at last week's Democratic National Convention, telling the story of how Kerry pulled him out of the water while his boat was under fire. As in the case of the Silver Star, it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star. According to the recommendation signed by Elliott, a mine exploded under a boat accompanying Kerry's craft. ''Almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard [Kerry's] PCF-94, knocking First Lieutenant Rassman [sic] into the water and wounding Lt. JG Kerry in the right arm." Elliott then described how Kerry ''managed to pull Lt. Rassman aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm." Elliott concluded that Kerry had been ''calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire." Elliott, in the interview yesterday, said that based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats, he now thinks his assessment about the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart may have been based on poor information. In one affidavit, for example, Van O'Dell, who said he had been in a boat near Kerry on that day, declared that Kerry had ''lied" about what happened on that day and said that Rassmann was not under enemy fire when Kerry pulled him aboard. Elliott, asked about the contradiction between his recommendation and his new questioning of Kerry's third Purple Heart, responded, ''It makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest." But he said: ''I simply have no reason for these guys to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy. So, on the basis of all of the information that has come out, I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand." Naval documents said that Kerry ''received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF 94 while engaged in operations on river. Condition and prognosis excellent. Result of hostile action." Rassmann, reached by telephone yesterday, said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart. He said there were two separate events: One was earlier in the day, when he and Kerry blew up a rice cache, and the explosion caused some of the rice to hit Kerry, and perhaps some weapon fragments as well. The second involved a mine explosion as Kerry and Rassmann were on patrol. The explosion, Rassmann said, knocked him overboard and threw Kerry against the pilot house, injuring his arm. Rassmann said that he has always believed that Kerry got the third Purple Heart solely for the injury to his arm as a result of the explosion in the water. ''If he got fragments in the buttocks due to the mine, that is new information to me," Rassmann said. ''I would say there is confusion. Maybe they did lump it together. It was my understanding he got it for the wound being thrown across the pilot house." Either way, Rassmann said, Kerry deserved the third Purple Heart because such awards are given for injuries incurred in combat, and Kerry's arm injury qualified. He also stood by his recollection that he was under fire when rescued by Kerry. Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF
  10. HA!!! Look at you.... You watch a 24/7 political ad for the GOP. Fox News.
  11. By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published August 11, 2004 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040811-123531-3824r -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. intelligence officials say a high-profile political assassination, triggered by the public release of a new message from Osama bin Laden, will lead off the next major al Qaeda terrorist attack, The Washington Times has learned. The assassination plan is among new details of al Qaeda plots disclosed by U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports who, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the killing could be carried out against a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad. The officials mentioned Saudi Arabia and Yemen, two nations that are working with the United States in the battle against al Qaeda, as likely locales for the opening assassination. The planning for the attacks to follow involves "multiple targets in multiple venues" across the United States, one official said. The new details of al Qaeda's plans were found on a laptop computer belonging to arrested al Qaeda operative Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan of Pakistan. "We're talking about planning at the screwdriver level," one official said. "It is very detailed." Khan was arrested July 13 in Lahore, Pakistan, along with Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian who was indicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa and was on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists. U.S. and allied counterterrorism officials are pursuing leads on other terrorists based on the data from Khan's seized laptop. At least one arrest in Britain has been made so far, and others are expected, the officials said. Additionally, U.S. intelligence officials said they think that several al Qaeda terrorists already in the United States are part of the plot, although their identities and locations are not known. The targets, in addition to the financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J., that have been the subject of public warnings, include such economic-related targets as oil and gas facilities with a view toward disrupting the November election. "The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' " The officials also said the terrorist group has begun using female members for preattack surveillance and possibly as suicide bombers, thinking that women will have an easier time getting past security checkpoints at airports, borders and ports. The al Qaeda attack plans call for bombings using trucks and cars, and hijacked aircraft, including commercial airliners and helicopters. "There is a particular concern that chemical trucks will be used," one official said. Regarding the new bin Laden message, the officials said there are intelligence reports, some of them sketchy, that a new tape from the al Qaeda leader will surface soon. In the past, video and audio messages by bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were broadcast days or weeks before an attack, the officials said. "The message likely will be the signal for the attack to be launched," one official said. A second U.S. official said one intelligence agency was aware of unconfirmed reports of a new bin Laden tape. "There may be such a tape, but it hasn't surfaced and we haven't seen it," this official said. Bin Laden last released a taped message in April. The CIA said that the audiotape probably was the voice of bin Laden and that the mention of the March 11 Madrid train bombings shows that the tape was current. That tape offered a "truce" for any European state that pledged to stop attacking Muslims and end cooperation with the United States. Contrary to what some Democratic critics of the Bush administration have said, intelligence officials said the new details of al Qaeda planning were obtained from the Khan laptop. The terrorist group was in the process of updating older attack plans, the officials said. On Aug. 2, the Bush administration raised the terrorism threat level from "elevated" to "high" for five finance-related sites in the District, New York and New Jersey, based on the intelligence in Khan's computer, as well as other intelligence. Frances Townsend, a White House homeland-security adviser, said Sunday that the government has received a steady "stream" of intelligence indicating that an al Qaeda attack is planned. "What we know now that we didn't know six months ago is that they've done a good deal of planning and surveillance work to accomplish that goal," she said on CBS' "Face the Nation." http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&q=cluster:www%2etodayonline%2ecom%2farticles%2f23718%2easp
  12. I think both are lying. Bush and you.
  13. Key Figure in Anti-Kerry Book Recants; Admits He Lied By Staff and Wire Reports Aug 6, 2004, 08:41 Email this article Printer friendly page A key figure in a veterans' anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, admitted today he lied when he said the Democratic candidate for President did not deserve the Silver Star. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott now says he made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in a new book, "Unfit For Command," which questions Kerry's fitness for President. In the book, which is being promoted on conservative web sites, Elliott is quoted as claiming Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." Elliott's statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Kerry critics who were not present at the event have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew but his crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives. Elliott now says he regretted signing the affidavit and feels Kerry deserved the Silver Star. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here," Elliott added. Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. "What I did (signing the statement) was wrong," Elliott said. "Terribly, terribly wrong. I'm sorry." © Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4985.shtml Hmmmm.. I wonder how many more of them lied about Kerry.
  14. CHB Investigates. . . Anti-Kerry Book Author Preaches Hate, Bigotry and Homophobia By WILLIAM D. McTAVISH Capitol Hill Blue Staff Writer Aug 9, 2004, 18:06 A co-author of the anti-Kerry screed, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, is a religious bigot, hatemonger and gay basher who says Islam should be eliminated, calls Senator Hillary Clinton a “lesbo†and says “Ragheads are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters.†“Islam is like a virus,†writes Jerome Corsi who – with longtime GOP operative John O’Neill wrote the book as part of a project financed by Texas Republican contributors with strong ties to President George W. Bush. “It (Islam) affects the mind,†Corsi writes. “Maybe even better as an analogy, it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects. No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body.†Corsi posted these comments on the FreeRepublic.com web site on November 26, 2002. He is a regular contributor to the right-wing website, posting under the screen handle of “jrlc†since 2001. A frequent gay basher, Corsi on November 18, 2001, posted: “Isn’t the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA?†(The capital letters are his) He reserves the same hatred towards Catholics: “So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican alters. We may get one more Pope, when this senile old one dies, but that’s probably about it.†(Posted on December 16, 2002). Corsi refers to Democratic Nominee John Kerry as “John F*ing Kerry†and said on February 2, 2004 that “John F*ing Commie Kerry and Commie Ted (Kennedy) discuss their plan to hand America over to our nation’s enemies.†His religious bigotry extends to Judiasm with this March 4, 2004, post: “After he married TeRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry being practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?†Besides John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Arabs, Muslims, Catholics and Jews, Corsi also hates Bill and Hillary Clinton. A sampling: “HELL-ary loves the Arabs so much (kiss, kiss Mrs. Arab*RAT) – wonder how she would look in a Burka?†(Posted on May 21, 2002). “When is this guy (Bill Clinton) going to admit he’s simply an anti-American communist? Won’t he and his leftist wife simply go away?†(Posted February 24, 2002). “Let the FAT HOG run!!!†(A reference to a possible Presidential run by Senator Clinton posted on August 30, 2003). “Anybody ask why HELLary couldn’t keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not a lesbo or anything is she?†(Posted on June 8, 2003). Corsi admitted on FreeRepublic.com on March 19 of this year that he was “jrlc†adding that “the VVAW and John Kerry are a field of interest to me. In 1972, I published an extensive study of the political protest around the 1972 Democratic and Republican National Conventions in Miami Beach, protests in which the VVAW was actively involved (the work was published at the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence, Brandeis University, 1974). Jerome R. Corsi, jrlc on Free Republic. I'll be happy to clarify any other questions you might have.†Jerome Corsi has a PhD in political science from Harvard (1972), has written books on various subjects and is vice president and senior editor of U.S. Financial Marketing Group. He is also a contributor to wintersoldier.com, where he writes about John Kerry’s antiwar activities after coming home from Vietnam. Reputable historians like Douglas Brinkley, author of the highly-acclaimed Tour of Duty, have noted about Corsi’s book, Unfit for Command, plays fast and loose with the facts when it comes to John Kerry. Corsi claims the Senator’s work as an antiwar activist were treasonous and claimed “Kerry and VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) consistently coordinated their efforts with communists.†Recently declassified FBI files show the bureau had VVAW under surveillance, as they did with many antiwar activists, but the files say agents could not find “any evidence of any affiliation or coordination with Communist elements known to be operating in the country.†In 1971, Corsi claimed Kerry proclaimed “Communists were right in maintaining that American values were corrupt and the only solution was for America to capitulate so Communism could continue to spread.†Yet that same year, on December 12, Kerry was quoted in the Boston Globe as saying “I don’t like Communists. In fact, I hate them. I hate all totalitarians. I’m totally dedicated to representative, pluralistic, free democracy.†“These are malicious fabrications in the heat of the election,†says Douglas Brinkley of the claims in Unfit for Command, adding that what Corsi and his co-author have written are nothing more than the grumbling of “malcontents who have never forgiven Kerry for his actions in speaking out against the war.†Few outside Corsi's narrow conservative Republican view escape his verbal assaults. He says initials for the news network MSNBC stand for “More Shit, Nothing But Communism.†(Posted on FreeRepublic.com on May 16, 2002), NBC Today Show host Katie Couric is “Little Katie Communist of NBC (which Corsi says stands for Nothing But Communism).†Celebrities are also a favorite target. On Martina Navratilova, Corsi posted on June 26, 2002: “Perfect Liberal – lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else.†And this on June 7, 2003: “Too bad the plane didn’t crash into the TV set of the NBC show ‘The Left Wing†– especially when Martin Sheen was acting.†(Our thanks to Media Matters for America for alerting us to this information along with readers who asked us to look into the opinions of Jerome Corsi because they said they were fed up with the tactics being used by Republicans and web sites like Free Republic.) © Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_5003.shtml
  15. http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/news/080904_AP_r2_private_rocket.html
  16. Kerry boost as economy hints at slide Paul Harris in New York Sunday August 8, 2004 The Observer America's ailing economy has become central to the battle for the White House, amid growing signs that the country's recovery from recession is stuttering to a halt. The economy is now seen as a potentially winning issue for Democrat challenger John Kerry, who made it one of the key planks of his campaign speeches as he stumped last week through the Midwest swing states. Kerry's tactics were given a boost yesterday when a new poll in two key battleground states showed the Massachusetts senator in a healthy lead over President George Bush. The study showed that in the key state of Florida, which decided the 2000 election, Kerry led Bush by 50 per cent to 43 per cent. In New Hampshire, which only narrowly went Republican in 2000, Kerry was ahead of Bush by 49 points to 42, the American Research Group poll showed. Experts believe that Kerry is benefiting from positive press after staging a successful recent party convention. 'You can logically conclude that the convention brought wayward Democrats back to Kerry,' said ARC president Dick Bennett. At the same time Bush has been slammed by a wave of bleak news on the economy. On Friday, the government released its latest job creation figures which showed a mere 32,000 new jobs were added to the economy last month. That was way below forecasts which had envisaged at least a quarter of a million new jobs. The disastrous figures scotched hopes earlier this year that America's economic recovery was roaring along and about to deprive the Democrats of one of their strongest criticisms of Bush's record. Now the opposite appears to hold true. As well as the job figures, recent weeks have seen a huge slide in the stock market, which now stands at the same level as it did at the start of the year. A huge rise in oil prices has also knocked US consumers as petrol prices have rocketed above $2 a gallon. That might still seem cheap to many Europeans, but in America it is seen as highly expensive and the price of petrol has become a staple complaint. For the Republican campaign team the grim spectre of the electoral fate of Bush's father is beginning to haunt the campaign. The elder George Bush was ousted in 1992 after just one term by Bill Clinton, as Democrats coined the now famous taunt: 'It's the economy, stupid.' To drive home the point Kerry's campaign has released a new ad that accuses Bush of sacrificing US jobs in favour of tax breaks for companies that move overseas. Since Bush took office in January 2001, the US economy has lost a net 1.1 million jobs. In response, Bush's campaign has centred far more on highlighting the issue of national security. Polls consistently show that Bush leads Kerry when it comes to dealing with the war on terror. But that has fuelled claims that Bush is exploiting a terrorism scare which last week saw the threat level raised in New York, Washington and Newark, New Jersey. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1278613,00.html Also see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040807.wecono7/BNStory/Front/ http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2390803 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9340616.htm?1c http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001999227_jobs07.html
  17. FUBAR Key Figure in Anti-Kerry Book Recants; Admits He Lied By Staff and Wire Reports Aug 6, 2004, 08:41 A key figure in a veterans' anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, admitted today he lied when he said the Democratic candidate for President did not deserve the Silver Star. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott now says he made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in a new book, "Unfit For Command," which questions Kerry's fitness for President. In the book, which is being promoted on conservative web sites, Elliott is quoted as claiming Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." Elliott's statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Kerry critics who were not present at the event have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew but his crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives. Elliott now says he regretted signing the affidavit and feels Kerry deserved the Silver Star. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here," Elliott added. Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. "What I did (signing the statement) was wrong," Elliott said. "Terribly, terribly wrong. I'm sorry." © Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_4985.shtml
  18. Bush ignores job news

    Associated Press Anemic Job Growth Adds to Economic Worries 08.06.2004, 03:57 PM America's payrolls grew by an anemic 32,000 new jobs in July, suggesting the economy is stuck in summer lethargy three months before voters elect a president. The latest snapshot on employment growth, in a report Friday by the Labor Department, showed the smallest gain in hiring since December. Job gains reported earlier for May and June also were lowered. "The economy has come close to a standstill this summer," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "I think businesses' collective psyche is still quite fragile," he said, citing high energy prices, the possibility of terrorism and the Iraq war. The unemployment rate, however, dipped to 5.5 percent last month, from 5.6 percent in June. The new rate was the lowest since October 2001. The payrolls figure and the unemployment rate can sometimes go in different directions because they are derived from two separate statistical surveys. That divergence gave both the Republican and Democratic camps something to talk about. The Bush administration cited the rate as evidence that its policies are working. The Kerry campaign pointed to the slowdown in job growth and the loss of 1.1 million jobs during Bush's presidency, shown by the payrolls, as proof that the president's policies are failing. The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is still expected to boost interest rates by one-quarter point at its next meeting on Tuesday, economists said. But if other economic data suggest the economy is cooling in the current quarter, that would make it less likely there would be further rate increases this year, they added. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, appearing before Congress last month, acknowledged the economy hit a "soft patch" in June. But he expressed confidence that it would be short-lived. Friday's payroll figures, however, indicated that the June slowdown wasn't an aberration. "Clearly the economy is stuck in a soft patch. It is longer than we anticipated," said Wells Fargo's chief economist Sung Won Sohn. Sohn said his projection for economic growth in the July-to-September quarter, now at a high of a 4.5 percent annual rate, will need to be lowered. The health of the economy and the availability of jobs are prominent issues in the presidential campaign. President Bush says his tax cuts have helped the economy rebound and that making those tax cuts permanent will spur more job creation. "Our economy is continuing to move forward," Bush said, adding, "I'm not going to be satisfied until everybody who wants to work can find a job." Democratic rival John Kerry contends Bush's policies benefit the wealthy, squeeze the middle class and aren't producing significant job growth. "The president keeps saying we've turned the corner. But unfortunately, today's job numbers further demonstrate that our economy may be taking a U-turn instead," Kerry said. The unemployment rate is calculated from a survey of around 60,000 households in which people are asked to state whether they have jobs or are looking for work. By that household survey, the number of people who found new jobs increased by 629,000 in July. The survey used to calculate the payroll figure is based on information from about 160,000 businesses and government agencies, covering roughly 400,000 individual worksites. Most economists look more closely at the payroll figure as a better barometer of the health of the jobs market. The 32,000 net jobs added in July followed a gain of just 78,000 jobs in June. May's payrolls also were lowered to show an increase of 208,000. The new figures for May and June translated into a combined 61,000 fewer jobs being created in those two months than previously estimated. The household survey counts self-employed workers. The survey of businesses does not. Analysts were expecting the economy to add anywhere from 215,000 to 247,000 jobs in July. They were predicting the jobless rate would hold steady at 5.6 percent. Still, July marked the 11th month in a row that the economy added jobs. Employment gains during that period total 1.5 million jobs. And, in an encouraging note, manufacturers, after cutting 1,000 jobs in June, added 10,000 in July. Education and health services also expanded employment. But retailers shed jobs, as did financial services firms and hospitality companies. There were 8.2 million people unemployed in July, with an average duration of 18.6 weeks without work, an improvement from 19.9 weeks the month before. http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/08/06/ap1495169.html http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&q=cluster:www%2eusatoday%2ecom%2fmoney%2feconomy%2femployment%2f2004%2d08%2d06%2djuly%5fx%2ehtm
  19. Go Don Henley

    "Whoops - Orange County... We used to be able to have civil debate in this country. Not anymore." - Don Henley http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/08/01/s...icle_186849.php
  20. Go Don Henley

    Henley miffs O.C. fans by talking politics The Orange County Register COSTA MESA – Singer Don Henley drew a chorus of boos from fans at the Pacific Amphitheatre after he made several political comments between songs during his concert Thursday night, becoming the latest performer to elicit such a negative reaction. Two weeks ago, Linda Ronstadt touched off a disturbance at a show in Las Vegas when she dedicated a song to filmmaker Michael Moore. Fans at the Aladdin Hotel and Casino booed, threw drinks and ripped down posters in the lobby, prompting the management to escort the singer from the premises and bar her from performing there again. Henley, referring to that incident Thursday night, began a sentence with, "Given what my good friend Linda Ronstadt ," but was silenced as the amphitheatre erupted in boos. He responded: "Whoops - Orange County," adding, "We used to be able to have civil debate in this country Not anymore." Henley then suggested his next song could be a duet sung by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He launched into Randy Newman's darkly satirical tune, "Political Science," which imagines the United States dropping nuclear weapons on the rest of the world. "He really blindsided everyone," said Joshua Owen of Long Beach, who had taken a group of employees to the concert and was upset by the political content. "There was booing. Some people headed for the exits."
  21. Internet 'Whisper' Campaign Spreads Lies About Teresa Kerry By FactCheck.Org Aug 6, 2004, 07:30 Email this article Printer friendly page False allegations about Democratic Presidential Candidate John F. Kerry's wife have been circulating for months, but the velocity of the Internet "whispering campaign" picked up substantially with the approach of the Fall campaign. One false message claims Teresa Heinz Kerry gave $4 million to a foundation that used the funds to support a list of "radical" groups including one with alleged links to Hamas and another that is said to have offered to provide a lawyer for Saddam Hussein. But public records show otherwise. Heinz Kerry's foundation money was directed to projects such as "Sustainable Pittsburgh," which promotes "smart growth" strategies. Another widely circulated e-mail claims Kerry and his wife "own" dozens of H.J. Heinz Company factories in Europe and Asia. It accuses Kerry of hypocrisy for denouncing offshoring of US jobs while "making millions off that cheap labor." That's also false: neither of them own Heinz. Public records show Heinz Kerry isn't an officer of the company, isn't on the company's board of directors, and isn't even close to being the largest shareholder. The Heinz Endowments do own Heinz stock -- less than 4% of the company -- but income from that stock goes to charity, not to the Kerrys personally. Analysis FactCheck.org has received hundreds of copies of these two e-mails from subscribers who asked us to check out whether there's any truth to them. They have been circulating like a virus, relayed by people who either don't bother to check out whether they are true, or don't care. It's the modern equivalent of the old "whispering campaign" in which false rumors served as political weapons. Teresa Heinz Kerry and the Tides Foundation The more virulent of these nasty, false mailings alleges that she's given more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation of San Francisco to fund a variety of "radical" groups including some that the message suggests are supportive of terrorists. To start, that's flatly denied by Maxwell King, the President of the Heinz Endowments. King told FactCheck.org: King: Neither she nor her foundations has ever funded any of the extremist organizations or unpatriotic causes listed in the email you forwarded. Period. The Tides Foundation also says that no Heinz funds have gone to any of the groups named in the e-mail. Further, it says Tides itself gives little or no money to several of them. Christopher J. Herrera, Director of Communications of the Tides Foundation, told us that the allegation about a Ramsey Clark group is utterly false, for example. Herrera: We have made no grants to this organization nor can we find any association with it in our records. According to Herrera, Tides Foundation gifts to the National Lawyers Guild total "approximately $30,000 over the last ten years," and donations to the Council on Islamic Relations amounted to a single $5,000 grant in 2002 for a Southern California project called the "Interfaith Coalition Against Hate Crimes." But even those relatively small sums didn't come from Heinz money as alleged. Where $8 million went Both groups say the only money given directly to the Tides Foundation by the Heinz Endowments was $230,000 given between 1994 and 1998, all used to support a pollution-prevention initiative and other environmental projects in Western Pennsylvania. Much larger sums have gone through a related legal entity called the Tides Center, which administers grants for groups receiving donations that are not themselves incorporated as a nonprofit organization. The Tides Center takes a fee, typically between 7% and 9%, for handling payrolls, disbursing, legal and administrative work, but the rest legally must go to the group for which the donor intended it. The Heinz Endowments released a list of grants totaling $8.1 million given through Tides since 1994. None of the money went for the "radical" groups named in the e-mail.Instead, the grants included such sums as: $1.6 million for "Sustainable Pittsburgh," which promotes such projects as "bike to work week." Just over $1 million for the "Chemical Strategies Partnership," which looks for ways to cut the use of chemicals in industry. $800,000 for the "Green Building Alliance ," which promotes buildings that use less energy. Nearly $1.4 million for the "Pennsylvania Energy Project," which spun off several renewable-energy projects before going out of business at the end of 2000. Included in the $8.1 million are grants from the Howard Heinz Endowment and also the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, which collectively make up the Heinz Endowments. Heinz Kerry chairs the Howard Heinz Endowment, the larger of the two, and is a member of the board of directors of the smaller Vira I. Heinz Endowment. The list appears to be accurate: FactCheck.org checked each grant on the list against those that the Heinz endowments reported to the US Internal Revenue Service on their form 990's for the five years 1998 through 2002. We found no discrepancies: all the grants on the master list matched grants reported on the IRS forms, where there could be legal penalties for false reporting. We would have checked 990's for other years but those before 1998 are not readily available, and the two Heinz endowments aren't scheduled to file their forms for 2003 until Aug. 15. (Anyone who wants to check for themselves can call up the Heinz form 990's here , where they are posted for all to see by Guidestar, a national database of nonprofit organizations. The service is free, but registration is required.) The Scaife Connection This false allegation has its roots in a study published in December, 2003 by the conservative Capital Research Center of Washington, DC. It stated that the Tides Foundation and Tides Center "effectively 'launder' donor dollars" so that "the original donor can’t be linked to the ultimate recipient." It said the Heinz Endowments had given $4,298,500 to Tides between 1995 and 2001. That turned out to be much less than the actual amount, and far from being "laundered," donations from Heinz are listed on the endowment's website as well as in publicly available form 990's. One of the study's authors then wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, accusing Heinz of teaming with Tides to engage in "secretive funneling of cash . . . to extreme left-wing activist groups." In fact, none of the Heinz money was actually earmarked for any of the organizations listed. Nevertheless, the two articles have been quoted widely on conservative newspaper editorial pages and on conservative websites, one of which is quoted in the bogus e-mail we cite here. Worth noting is that the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is conservative Republican donor William Mellon Scaife, whose charities also gave $260,000 to Capital Research in 2002, according to a March 7 report in the rival Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Scaife attracted notice in the 1990's when he funded some of the journalistic investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs. It was the editorial page director for Scaife's Tribune-Review, Colin McNickle, whom Heinz Kerry told to "shove it" in a much-reported incident during the Democratic National Convention July 25. Heinz Kerry and the Overseas Food Factories Another e-mail that many of our subscribers have asked about claims -- falsely -- that Heinz Kerry and her husband "own" factories overseas and hypocritically are "making millions off all that cheap labor" while denouncing Bush for letting jobs go to other countries. This one can also be proved false from publicly available records. In fact, Heinz Kerry has no role in running the food company. As the H.J. Heinz Company reports in its most recent proxy statement on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Heinz Kerry is not on the company's board of directors, nor is she listed among the principal shareholders (those who control 5% or more of the outstanding shares). The charitable foundations she controls once held much more Heinz stock but sold off most of it nearly a decade ago to diversify their investments. The Heinz company said in a recent public statement that she currently controls less than 4% of the company's stock. The largest shareholder is actually a California investment company that owns roughly three times as much as the Heinz charitable foundations. About all that is true in this e-mail is that the Heinz company has a number of factories overseas. Its most recent annual report, also publicly available at the SEC's website, lists 32 factories owned in Europe (and three more leased), and 18 in Asia and the Pacific (plus four more leased). Heinz also reported selling just over $3 billion in products in Europe and more than $1 billion more in Asia and the Pacific -- accounting for roughly half the company's global sales. The company issued a statement back in March, when this e-mail first began circulating, saying that 60% of its sales are outside the US (including those in Mexico and Canada as well as Europe and Asia) and that it locates plants in other countries "to accommodate those customers by providing facilities closer to those markets" and "to pack the freshest ingredients, tailor its recipes to local tastes and deliver the final products in a timely and efficient manner." The company also distanced itself from the Kerry campaign and Heinz Kerry: H.J. Heinz Co: In light of some misleading speculation, the H. J. Heinz Company would like to make clear that neither Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry, Senator John Kerry nor any member of their family is involved in the management or board of the H. J. Heinz Company. . . . They have no involvement in the Heinz® Ketchup business or any of the company’s other brands or products. The Heinz company also said it is "nonpartisan." Worth noting, however, is that the company's Political Action Committee has given nearly all its donations to Republican candidates, including $5,000 to the Bush campaign and nothing to Kerry's as of the most recent reports available. That's additional evidence, as if any was needed, that the company isn't "owned" by Kerry's wife. Sources Heinz Endowments, "The Heinz Endowments Grants to Tides Center / Tides Foundation," news release, undated. Howard Heinz Endowment, IRS Form 990PF, fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Vira I Heinz Endowment, a Pennsylvania Non Profit Corp, IRS Form 990PF, fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Gretchen Randall and Tom Randall, "The Tides Foundation: Liberal Crossroads of Money and Ideas," Foundation Watch, Capital Research Center, Washington DC, December 2003. Tom Randall, "The Heinz Endowments have teamed with a secretive left-wing group ," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review , 14 Dec. 14, 2003. (Also here ). Dennis B. Roddy, "Right zooms in on Heinz grants; Heinz Kerry's foundation work provide grist for foes," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , 7 march 2003. H.J. Heinz Company, "SCHEDULE 14A, Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," 2 July 2004. H.J. Heinz Company, "FORM 10-K: ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended April 28, 2004" 17 June 2004. H.J. Heinz Company, "H.J. Heinz Company Confirms Its Widely Held Public Ownership And Non-Partisan Status," news release, 22 March 2004. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4980.shtml
  22. Bush Leagues Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election' By TERESA HAMPTON & WILLIAM D. McTAVISH Capitol Hill Blue Staff Jul 30, 2004, 08:12 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_4935.shtml The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush. Nancy Reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the Republican National Convention and has warned the Bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the President’s re-election effort. “Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither to most members of the President’s family,†says a spokesman for the former First Lady. Reagan’s son, Ron, spoke at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention and writes in next month’s Esquire magazine that “George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. They traffic in big lies.†Ron Reagan is joined by his sister Patty in opposing Bush’s re-election effort. Only brother Michael Reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the President and claims Ron is manipulating his mother. Unlike the other Reagan children, Michael is not Reagan’s biological child. He was adopted by Reagan during the actor’s first marriage to actress Jane Wyman and often complains that his stepmother, Nancy, likes Ron best. “He is her favorite,†Michael Reagan told Fox News. “Ron can do no wrong. I mean, basically that's it, Ron can do no wrong.†Ron, however, claims George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Party his father helped build. “My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself,†Reagan writes in Esquire. “His Republican Party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious right.†The Reagans’ split with Bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can help find a cure for Alzheimer’s, the disease that crippled President Reagan in his final years. Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party oppose use of new stem cells. The Reagans, with the exception of Michael, support such use. There’s more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush. During the week of Reagan’s funeral, the former First Lady “went ballistic†when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan’s photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election. She personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed. Republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. They were pulled after scoring poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in “poor taste.†“Mrs. Reagan doesn’t care why the ads were pulled. She just wanted to make sure they never went on the air,†says a spokesman for the First Lady. “She does care about whether or not the memory of President Reagan is used for political purposes.†© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue
×