|
| Get your Bush-Cheney Yard Sign |
| Wednesday, September 29, 2004 |
In response to the intense demand for Bush-Cheney '04
yard signs, Spalding Group is excited to introduce the
"yard-sign-only" website ( Click Title Above)
Show your support by ordering your attractive, durable
Bush-Cheney '04 yard sign for the low price of $9.95 -
shipping and handling included! We've also included a
free Bush-Cheney '04 bumper sticker as part of the
package.
|
posted by J.R. @ 10:38:00 AM   |
|
|
|
| Firefighters Versus the Media |
| Tuesday, September 28, 2004 |
Email the Union President:
Send your email to: info@papba.org
Attention: President Gus Danese
Port Authority of NY & NJ Police Benevolent
Association
Firefighters Versus the Media
By Cliff Kincaid | September 28, 2004
. . . the president of the firefighters union
engineered an endorsement of John Kerry for president
without asking his members about it.
One of the biggest stories of the presidential
campaign is being ignored by the major media. It's
how the president of the firefighters union engineered
an endorsement of John Kerry for president without
asking his members about it. It turns out most of the
members of the union are Republicans who support Bush.
Harold Schaitberger, the president of the
International Association of Fire Fighters, the IAFF,
has received tons of publicity and has been shown
repeatedly with Kerry at campaign events. These
appearances convey the impression that the
firefighters who performed heroically on 9/11 have
abandoned Bush. But it's Schaitberger who abandoned
his members.
During the Republican convention, the union
representing New York City's 8,600 firefighters
endorsed Bush. But stories about this development
tried to diminish the significance of the endorsement
by noting that the international union, the IAFF, had
endorsed Kerry. The stories failed to explain, as we
did in a recent Media Monitor, that Schaitberger made
this decision without polling his members. Instead, a
few members were asked about the characteristics they
wanted in a president. On that basis, Scahitberger
decided to endorse Kerry. Schaitberger admitted to
MSNBC's Chris Matthews that there are more Republicans
than Democrats in his union.
"Thank you so very much for your work on exposing
these facts." That's how a professional firefighter
and member of the IAFF local 2876 of South Kitsap Fire
District 7 in Washington state responded to our Media
Monitor on this matter. He told us, "I am so sick and
tired of union 'leaders' talking for us, so much so
that I don't pay into the PAC [political action
committee] fund anymore because it does not represent
my views or the majority of those of my co-workers
either. No one in our department, to my knowledge,
received or heard of a poll regarding who we
supported. I am a proud firefighter for Bush as are,
I believe by straw poll, a great many of my fellow
firefighters, including our VP. "
Using the same old ploy, a Newsday story about the
firefighters' endorsement of Bush claimed that, "the
International Association of Fire Fighters unanimously
endorsed Kerry and its members have since often
campaigned with him." But that once again ignores the
fact that the endorsement was delivered without
polling members of the union. Not surprisingly, the
New York Times compounded the error. It declared, "A
year ago, the nation's main firefighters' union, the
260,000-member International Association of
Firefighters, became the first large union to endorse
Mr. Kerry." That falsely implied that these 260,000
members had voted to endorse Kerry.
The Firefighters for Bush website continues to ask
firefighters whether any of them were ever consulted
by Schaitberger about the Kerry endorsement. One
posted the following answer: "I don't think anyone but
Schaitberger's opinion counts at all. The IAFF is
stealing our dues to support Kerry." Another said,
"It's disgusting a portion of our dues go toward
campaigning against President Bush." This is the
story that the media should tell.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 2:25:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Iraq GI: Troops Are 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency |
|
Iraq GI: Troops Are 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency
U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at
the prospect that Americans back home might elect John
Kerry president, a Marine Iraq veteran who is on his
way back to the frontlines said Monday.
Asked how Kerry's election would effect troop morale
in the combat zone, Lance Corporal Lawrence Romack
told KWEL Midland, Texas radio host Craig Anderson,
"It would destroy it." "We're pretty terrified of a
John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with
the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq.
The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news
coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like
a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost.
"What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White
House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay
[in Iraq]," he told Anderson.
Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate
picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine
corporal said, "No, they're not. It's not even close.
All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They
don't want to report the progress we're making over
there."
Romack noted that in southern part of the country,
Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an
immunization programs for children, opened schools and
began distributing food.
"Almost immediately people were lining up to get their
kids shots," he told Anderson.
Contrary to reports that the general population was
too afraid to help ferret out insurgents, Romack said,
"We had Iraqis pointing out former Baath Party members
for us to arrest."
When the KWEL host opened up the phone lines, a member
of the 82nd Airborne who had returned from Iraq in
March was first on the line.
He agreed with Cpl. Romack that media reports coming
out of Iraq were often inaccurate - and sometimes even
dangerous.
"The news media - sometimes I felt like I had as much
to fear from them as I did the Iraqis," he complained.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 2:22:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Media Crybabies for Kerry |
|
Supporters of John Kerry, including supposedly
impartial reporters, are faulting President Bush for
characterizing the challenger's comments in something
other than the light most favorable to the challenger.
Here's an example, from an Associated Press dispatch
titled "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq":
He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the
week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam
Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew
gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine,
Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president
said.
But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York
University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal
dictator who deserves his own special place in hell."
He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall
does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for
a chaos that has left America less secure."
One could argue that Bush's characterization of
Kerry's statement is unfair or tendentious, but that's
a matter of opinion. Hence it belongs in an opinion
column, like this one by the Washington Post's E.J.
Dionne, and not in a purportedly objective wire story.
Besides, the AP seems to agree with Bush's
characterization of Kerry's views on Iraq, as
evidenced by these two AP headlines from last week:
"Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam" and "Kerry
Faults Bush for Pursuing Saddam."
In a similar vein, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post
on Friday published an "analysis" critical of
Republicans for arguing that John Kerry's belligerent
defeatism on Iraq emboldens the enemy there (a view
with which we agree). "Such accusations have been a
component of American politics since the Alien and
Sedition Acts of 1798 and surfaced in the modern era
during the McCarthy communist hunt and the Vietnam War
protests," writes Milbank.
The next day's New York Times carried an editorial
bearing the odd headline "An Un-American Way to Cam"
(presumably that last word is supposed to be
"Campaign"). Naturally, it's the Bush campaign that's
"un-American," according to the Times. Milbank quotes
a Kerry spokesman who likewise calls the Bush campaign
"un-American." So who exactly is the McCarthyite here?
Yesterday's Times includes a piece by reporter David
Sanger on the two remaining members of the axis of
evil, Iran and North Korea. It concludes with this
observation: "No doubt Mr. Kim [Jong Il], an avid
viewer of satellite television, will be tuned to the
debates for any hint that Mr. Kerry would give him a
better deal." (Hat tip: blogger Tom McGuire.)
If it's un-American when the Bush campaign suggests
that Kerry's weakness is emboldening the enemy, what
is it when David Sanger does so?
|
| posted by J.R. @ 1:14:00 AM |
|
|
|
| CBS, Kerry Campaign Hit With FEC Complaint |
| Monday, September 27, 2004 |
CBS, Kerry Campaign Hit With FEC Complaint
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
September 27, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The Center for Individual
Freedom, a Virginia-based, constitutional advocacy
group filed a complaint last week with the Federal
Election Commission charging that CBS and
Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. illegally coordinated
election communications. The complaint charges that
CBS and the Kerry campaign violated federal campaign
finance laws when they colluded to attack President
George W. Bush based on claims and documents now
believed to be fake.
Jeffrey Mazzella, the Center's Executive Director,
said in a press release, "It's obvious that CBS and
the Kerry campaign acted improperly. That much is
clear to anyone with a pulse."
Mazzella added, "But what's been lost is that CBS and
its executives blatantly violated federal election
laws when they overtly ignored basic journalistic
ethical standards and coordinated with the Kerry
campaign in order to run an attack story in an effort
to affect the outcome of the November presidential
election. Our complaint makes this very clear."
The complaint focuses on a September 8 segment on the
CBS program "60 Minutes II." In the segment, CBS
correspondent Dan Rather suggested that President Bush
received preferential treatment to gain acceptance
into the Texas Air National Guard and failed to
fulfill his service obligation. CBS's charges relied
on a number of documents that it later admitted were
not reliable.
CBS's source, Bill Burkett, required that CBS arrange
for a conversation between him and a senior advisor of
the Kerry campaign as a condition for handing over the
documents. On September 4, just four days before the
segment aired, CBS producer Mary Mapes spoke with Joe
Lockhart, a former Clinton press secretary and Kerry
advisor.
Lockhart admitted that during the conversation he and
Mapes discussed the upcoming segment attacking
President Bush. Lockhart also admits that he later
spoke with Burkett at CBS's urging.
Mazzella explained, "If there had been no
coordination, there would have been no attack story.
CBS would not have been able to use the documents it
so desperately needed for its assault on President
Bush if one of its producers hadn't coordinated with
the Kerry campaign."
He continued, "Mr. Lockhart's conversations with CBS
and Mr. Burkett raise additional questions that must
also be answered."
Two days after CBS aired the segment attacking
President Bush, the Democratic National Committee
released a video entitled "Fortunate Son" which makes
many of the same arguments as the CBS story, and even
uses footage from the segment.
Under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, media
organizations are exempt from provisions barring
corporations from engaging in "electioneering
communications" within 60 days of a general election.
But the Center argued that CBS forfeited its exemption
by illegally coordinating a partisan attack on the
president only 55 days before an election.
Mazzella said, "Under normal circumstances, the media
exemption is in place because it presumes that the
press is impartial, and that the public relies on
impartial reporting of the ideas and actions of the
candidates."
The CFIF director pointed out, "However, this is no
normal circumstance. CBS threw its impartiality out
the door, ignored basic journalistic standards and
coordinated with the Kerry campaign, all in an effort
to run a bogus story in an attempt to affect the
outcome of a federal election."
He concluded, "Our complaint argues that CBS forfeited
its exemption when it chose to become an arm of the
Kerry campaign."
Talon News was first to report that on Wednesday,
Anthony Bongiorno, counsel for the beleaguered network
ordered a legal hold on all tapes and material
relating to the report. A source reported that the
hold was in anticipation of various lawsuits and
investigations. On the same day, CBS announced an
independent commission comprised of Dick Thornburgh,
former governor of Pennsylvania and Attorney General
under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 and also Louis D.
Boccardi, retired president and chief executive
officer of the Associated Press.
Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved
|
| posted by J.R. @ 11:44:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Clintonista Suggests U.S. Wage War on Iran |
|
Something buried deep in a wire story today caught our eye: a former Clinton administration official asserting that the United States might have to start a war with nuclear Iran.
Imagine the uproar if an official in the Bush administration or any other Republican administration suggested such a thing.
Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center and Clinton's former expert on Tehran, said that "if diplomacy fails, there might be no choice but for the United States to lead a concerted military campaign against Iran," the Associated Press reported.
Kupchan said, "If the U.S. moves aggressively, it won't be sanctions; it will be a coalition of the willing."
Where have we heard that phrase before?
|
| posted by J.R. @ 7:00:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Bush Maintains Lead in Post-ABC Poll |
|
President George W. Bush maintains a clear lead over Democrat John F. Kerry and continues to be perceived by most voters at the best candidate to deal with Iraq and the war on terrorism, according to the lates Washington Post-ABC News poll.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 6:38:00 PM |
|
|
|
| The Debates: Why Kerry Is The Underdog |
|
The Debates: Why Kerry Is The Underdog
By Richard S. Dunham With Mike McNamee
Business Week
Updated: 12:00 a.m. ET Sept. 27, 2004
One thing is certain in the upcoming Presidential
debates: George W. Bush won't be, to use his own word,
"misunderestimated." After besting smartypants Al Gore
four years ago in the court of public opinion -- if
not on debate points -- Bush earned his spurs as an
effective rhetorician whose folksy "average Joe"
approach in televised encounters has disarmed foes in
three straight elections. And while Republican
spinners will build up John Kerry as a brilliant
debater with a track record worthy of the National
Forensic League Hall of Fame, it is the President's
challenger, not the President, who is on the spot as
the debates open at the University of Miami on Sept.
30.
Kerry, whose eight 1996 Senatorial debates against
Republican rival William Weld are the stuff of
Massachusetts legend, will have to be in top form.
After six months in the lead or deadlocked, the
Democratic nominee has dropped behind Bush. Equally
disconcerting to Dems, Bush now is the people's choice
to handle two of the three top issues -- terrorism and
Iraq -- while he's holding his own on the economy. The
three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential
face-off could be Kerry's last best chance to reshape
the contest. "The debates are going to be enormously
important," says his campaign manager, Mary Beth
Cahill.
For Kerry to break through, he will have to survive a
clash of debating styles. Bush tends toward the
vernacular, while Kerry is far more formal. The
plainspoken Bush needs to avoid factual error. The
more cerebral Kerry needs to avoid condescension.
Immodesty is "the common mistake senators make and why
they don't get elected as Presidents," says Republican
pollster Ed Goeas. "If Kerry falls back to where he's
comfortable -- I'm smarter than George W. Bush -- he
will lose the debates."
Americans, say Goeas, want a candidate who is "strong
enough to govern." That's why top Democrats say Kerry,
while on the stage near Bush, must appear to be a
plausible Commander-in-Chief. "The threshold issue
[voters] want to be assured of is that they will be
safe and their country will be safe," says House
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer [D-Md.]. To score, Kerry
must outline his plans for the war on terrorism and
postwar Iraq "with a great degree of clarity and
forcefulness," says Hoyer.
Changing the Subject
That's a challenge for a candidate derided as a
congenital flip-flopper. But Kerry can't simply play
defense on defense issues -- he needs to change the
subject. Zogby polls show that voters most concerned
about terrorism favor Bush by 41 percentage points.
Those more worried about the economy choose Kerry by
14. "As long as Senator Kerry engages the President on
the war on terrorism, he loses," says pollster John
Zogby. "He has to focus on the economy."
That could be difficult. Only one debate will be
devoted to domestic concerns -- the final one. History
shows that "the first debate, not the last debate, is
the most important," says Brookings Institution
Presidential scholar Stephen Hess. "By the time they
move to domestic issues, the election could be over."
Then again, debates are unpredictable, and stumbles by
two incumbents -- Ford and Carter -- contributed to
their defeats. But Kerry can't count on a Bush gaffe.
To best the Prez, he must look smart but not elitist,
strong but not strident, and decisive, not constantly
inconstant. Even for a skilled debater, that's a tall
order.
Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All
rights reserved
|
| posted by J.R. @ 3:35:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Report: Top Bin Laden deputy caught in Pakistan |
|
Report: Top Bin Laden deputy caught in Pakistan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 27, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahri has been caught
in Pakistan, according to a report from the region
quoted on Israel Radio Monday.
Pakistani forces operating against al Qaida
strongholds in the country report capturing the
Egyptian national, who was formerly the head of the
Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which operated in the past
against the Egyptian regime.
Earlier Monday, the US commander of coalition forces
in Afghanistan Lieutenant-General David Barno told
Reuters that there is little evidence of al Qaida
fighters still in Afghanistan, and that Pakistan's
crackdown on al Qaida-linked operatives has made life
harder for fugitives hiding in tribal areas near the
Afghan - Pakistani border.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 2:06:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Plans: Next, War on Syria? |
|
Plans: Next, War on Syria?
Newsweek
Oct. 4 issue - Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and
generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military
action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit
responsible for military planning for the two
troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an
administration official says. Some Bush advisers
characterize the work as merely an effort to revise
routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all
contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish
bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a
revived campaign by administration conservatives and
neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the
countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for
jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively
pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners
acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in
Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an
unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is
the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want
regime change in Damascus and Tehran.
Mark Hosenball
� 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 1:50:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Intel Showed Iraq Smuggled Out WMDs |
|
Ex-CENTCOM No. 2: Intel Showed Iraq Smuggled Out WMDs
Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC Ret.), who until last
September was the No. 2 in command of the Iraq war
under Gen. Tommy Franks, revealed Sunday that U.S.
military intelligence had determined that weapons of
mass destruction were being smuggled out of the
country as the U.S. prepared to invade. "I do know for
a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria,
Lebanon and Iran," Gen. DeLong told WABC Radio's Steve
Malzberg, while discussing his new book, "Inside
CENTCOM: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq."
"Two days before the war, on March 17 [2003], we saw
through multiple intelligence channels - both human
intelligence and technical intelligence - large
caravans of people and things, including some of the
top 55 [most wanted] Iraqis, going to Syria," Gen.
DeLong explained. "We also know that before then, they
buried some of the weapons of mass destruction," he
added. "There are also some in Lebanon and probably a
small amount in Iran."
The WMD smuggling operation didn't require large
vehicles, the ex-general explained.
"In order to transport their biological weapons, they
could take their entire experimental weapons system in
one or two suitcases - pretty easy to hide," he told
Malzberg.
As for Saddam's chemical weapons cache, his deputies
could have fit them into "a van - probably one van or
two vans and either bury it or drive it across one of
the borders," the former No. 2 CENTCOM chief said.
Human intelligence, said DeLong, indicated that
Saddam's deputies also "took billions of dollars with
them when they went into Syria."
It's no surprise that weapons buried in Iraq have yet
to be uncovered. "Seven-eighths of the country is arid
desert and it's the size of California. You could
probably bury 100 Empire State Buildings in Iraq and
not find them," the former Marine said.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 1:47:00 PM |
|
|
|
| French, German Officials Say They Won't Send Troops To Iraq Even if Kerry Wins... |
|
No French or German turn on Iraq
By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and
James Harding in Washington
Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated:
September 26 2004 21:13
French and German government officials say they will
not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq
even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential
challenger, is elected on November 2.
Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush
for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq,
has pledged to improve relations with European allies
and increase international military assistance in
Iraq.
"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our
decision not to send troops, whoever becomes
president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament
and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social
Democratic Party, said in an interview.
"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to
multilateralism and as president he would find it
easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's
backing in other matters."
Even though Nato last week overcame members'
long-running reservations about a training mission to
Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300
soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last
week that France, which has tense relations with
interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to
send troops "either now or later".
That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato
officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the
difficulty of extricating troops already there could
make European governments reluctant to send personnel,
regardless of the outcome of the US election.
A French government official said: "People don't
expect that much would change under a Kerry
administration, even if things can only get better. We
do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event
Kerry replaces Bush.
"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington
and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then
it's possible we would re-examine our position, but I
don't expect a massive change either way."
A German government spokesman declined to comment on
the outcome of the US presidential election. But the
feeling in Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's office is
that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather than
more likely to change its mind as security conditions
deteriorate in Iraq.
Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his
2002 electoral commitment not to send troops as a new
general election looms in 2006.
There is no sign that the German public, which loathes
the US president, would accept risking German lives to
salvage what is widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.
In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately
concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming
president, arguing it would not change US demands but
make it more difficult to reject them.
Both France and Germany, however, have said they would
contribute to the reduction of Iraq's debt and
participate in economic and environmental development
programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi security
forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do
so.
Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of
alienating foreign capitals and undermining US
credibility in the world one of the chief arguments on
Thursday night when he confronts the president in the
first presidential debate.
The televised debate, which is expected to be watched
by more than the 46.6m people who watched the debate
in 2000, will focus on foreign policy and national
security.
In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead
the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in
Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the
burden."
He continued: "the Bush administration would have you
believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't
make a difference who is president. They say the
Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have
news for President Bush: just because you can't do
something, doesn't mean it can't be done."
The German government continues to oppose sending
troops to Iraq under any circumstance.
Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the
invasion of Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the
Balkan and Afghanistan, it has also argued its troops
are overstretched.
Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision
to start training inside Iraq, it still thinks the
deployment is counter- productive.
"Nato personnel will become targets for attacks," one
official said on Sunday...
|
| posted by J.R. @ 1:28:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Kerry Blames Aides in Assault Rifle Flap |
|
Kerry Blames Aides in Assault Rifle Flap
John Kerry is denying he ever told a magazine
interviewer that he owned a Communist Chinese assault
rifle, blaming the comment instead on campaign aides
who, he insists, made the story up.
"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and
that of my crew in Vietnam," Kerry is quoted as saying
in the October issue of Outdoor Life. "I don't own one
of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is
a Communist Chinese assault rifle." It turns out,
however, that the gun quotes weren't Kerry's at all -
or so he maintains, claiming now that those words were
actually written by his staff, who never checked with
him.
Kerry aide Michael Meehan explained to the New York
Times that his boss's interview with the sports
magazine consisted of a four-page written account of
his hunting experience, which, the Times noted,
included "long conversational answers using
first-person pronouns."
Meehan said Kerry's Chinese assault rifle was actually
a single-bolt-action military rifle that he "keeps as
a relic" and has never fired.
If it's a relic he took home from Vietnam, however,
the top Democrat may still not be off the hook.
"If Kerry brought the gun home from the war as a
souvenir he could be subject to court-martial," NRA
spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told the Times.
So, why did Kerry staffers impersonate Kerry for the
interview? And how did they know that he had saved a
gun - relic or no - from his Vietnam days?
Meehan didn't say.
A spokesman for Outdoor Life did not respond to a
Times request for comment.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 1:10:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Times: Kerry's Own Aides Criticize Him as Manager |
|
Times: Kerry's Own Aides Criticize Him as Manager
John Kerry is trying to convince Americans he is more qualified than President Bush to lead the nation, especially during a time of war.
But Kerry�s own aides are complaining his has difficulty managing his own campaign.
According to a report in the New York Times this weekend, which described Kerry as "a four-term senator with comparatively little management experience," aides say Kerry too often deliberates even the smallest detail, leaving himself little reaction time to a much swifter Bush-Cheney campaign.
The paper noted that Bush�s background as a business executive and then governor of a large state has allowed him to manage his own campaign with greater success.
Of course, the Times still played Kerry up � quoting some aides as describing Kerry as "uncommonly bright, informed and curious. . . "
But the paper also paints a picture of "analysis paralysis� within the Kerry operation.
Some aides complain their boss gets bogged down in the details, making him slow to take action as he struggles to process and use information.
One aide told the Times he has figured out to influence Kerry: he doesn�t say anything until the very last moment. The waffling Kerry tends to take last minute advice.
Case in point: His staff was recently asked to find out all it could about certain details regarding the Bush administration's Medicare plans.
After his staff did all it could to provide the information, Kerry didn't even use it in a speech on the subject.
His staff says such a waste of their time makes it difficult for them to prepare their boss for the positions he wants to take against his Republican opponent.
". . . The downside to [Kerry's] deliberative executive style, they said, is a campaign that has often moved slowly against a swift opponent, and a candidate who has struggled to synthesize the information he sweeps up into a clear, concise case against Mr. Bush," says the Times. "Even his aides concede that Mr. Kerry can be slow in taking action, bogged down in the very details he is so intent on collecting."
Aides have other complaints, too. Like when Kerry spent more than a month trying to decide on his campaign logo. He was mulling over the font of the logo and whether it should have an American flag. Eventually Kerry decided to keep the flag.
Even diehard liberal the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has traveled with Kerry's campaign, says although the Massachusetts liberal is a "thinker" by nature, "a boxer needs a manager and needs a cut manager in the corner and needs someone to handle the towels. But once the bell rings, a boxer needs his instincts."
Other Democratic Party stalwarts and officials complain Kerry is more interested in the "finer points" of politics, but doesn't seem too concerned with the mechanics of the business.
"Scott Maddox, the chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, said he could not recall getting a call from Mr. Kerry checking in with what was going on in that critical state," the Times said, in one example.
Florida is considered a "battleground" state; it is headed by George W. Bush's brother, Jeb, but polls indicate the state is still in play.
Aides also say Kerry isn't one to delegate too much power to any one person. There is no "Karl Rove" on his staff, say aides.
"I am always in charge," says Kerry.
Kerry's also not afraid to upbraid his staff � even longtime friends and associates � as well as let staffers go if he feels his campaign is running "off the tracks."
As a result, few loyalists of his 1972 campaign are still around. Now, few who consider themselves friends are currently on his campaign staff.
Meanwhile, President Bush takes advice from a small � and unchanging � gaggle of staffers. His most senior campaign staff hasn't changed in 18 months.
"He's not involved in the details," says Rep. Ted Strickland of Ohio.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 11:29:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Kerry Violates Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, not Article 14 (no article 14). |
|
Kerry Violates Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the
US Constitution, not Article 14 (no article 14).
Sorry folks, I should have checked the article before
I posted it, it was not written by me and I did not
catch the mistake made by the author. Being a
Constitutional law instructor for police officers, I
should have caught it but I missed it. I'm sure that
the author mistakenly wrote "article" instead of
"amendment" because he is a respected author.
J.R.
Here is section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President
and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any state,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as
a member of any state legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any state, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged
in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability.
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
|
| posted by J.R. @ 10:52:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FORKED TONGUES |
|
FORKED TONGUES
It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so
many, and how soon they
forget! Were their words just that words or did their
words mean something
else? (read through to the bottom!)
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver them. That is our bottom
line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want
to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction
program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there
matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state
will use nuclear, chemical
or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat
we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten time since
1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security
Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle
(D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries
in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA),
Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline
Albright, Clinton Secretary
of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace
and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to
redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States
and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and threat to
the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
the mandated of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering
them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept.. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long
as Saddam is in power" -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D,
MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D,
WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to
use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a
deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave
threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),
Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to
develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next
five years . We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress
Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."- Sen. Jay
Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused
to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weap ons stock,
his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members.. It is clear,
however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and
will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D,
FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents
a particularly grievous
threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is
miscalculating America's response to his continued
deceit and his consistent
grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the
threat of Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F.
Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23.
2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT
BUSH LIED--THAT THERE
NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK
US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY ?
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
|
| posted by J.R. @ 9:59:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal |
|
Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal
Friday, September 24, 2004
By Powl Smith
[ Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith, U.S. Army, is the
former chief of
counterterrorism plans at U.S. European Command and is
currently in
Baghdad
with Multi-National Forces-Iraq. ]
Pundits these days are quick to compare the fighting
in Iraq (search)
with
the American loss in Vietnam (search) 30 years ago.
Terms like
"quagmire"
evoke the Southeast Asian jungle, where America's
technological
advantages
were negated and committed Vietnamese guerrillas wore
down the U.S.
will to
fight.
People love to draw historical analogies because they
seem to offer a
sort
of analytical proof?after all, doesn't history repeat
itself? In fact,
such
comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's
possible to find a
historical analogy to suit any argument. And Vietnam's
the wrong one
for
Iraq.
In fact, World War II is a far more accurate
comparison for the global
war
we are waging to defeat terrorism. Both wars began for
the United
States
with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared
enemy. We had many
faint
and not-so-faint warnings of the impending Japanese
assault on Pearl
Harbor
(search), not least the historical precedent of Port
Arthur in 1904,
when
the Japanese launched a preemptive strike against
Russia.
We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents
about Al Qaeda
(search)
and Islamist terrorism (search) (the East Africa
embassy bombings
(search)
in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (search) in 2000), but
in 2001 as in
1941, we
lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a
country at peace
that
it was about to pitched into war.
Historical apologists say that the Japanese were
"forced" to attack us
because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound
familiar?
American
foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for
the anger and rage
that
has stirred up Al Qaeda, right? In fact, there is a
crucial similarity
between the Japanese imperialism (search) of 50 years
ago and Islamic
fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian,
anti-Western ideologies
that
cannot be appeased.
As Japan amassed victory after victory in the early
days of the war,
America
and our allies could see that we had a long, hard slog
ahead of us.
Americans understood there was no recourse but to win,
despite the
fearful
cost. This was the first and foremost lesson of World
War II that
applies
today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not
cheap, and not
bloodless.
In one of our first counteroffensives against the
Japanese, U.S. troops
landed on the island of Guadalcanal (search) in order
to capture a key
airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and
audacity, and
with
very little fighting seized the airfield. But the
Japanese recovered
from
our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign
to force us off
Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very
clever and
absolutely
committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs.
(Only three
Japanese
surrendered after six months of combat?a statistic
that should put
today's
Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered
6,000 casualties
during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan,
24,000. It was a very
expensive airfield.
Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II:
Totalitarian
enemies
have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the
populations that support
them
have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody
and difficult
business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually
learned our enemies'
tactics?jungle and amphibious warfare (search),
carrier task forces,
air
power?and far surpassed them. But that victory took
four years and cost
many
hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal?one campaign of
many in a global
war to
defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the
United States in the
Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival
that will be
long,
hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first
battle of that war
on
Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away
from the critical
battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could
afford to walk
away
from Guadalcanal.
For the security of America, we have no recourse but
to win.
Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith, U.S. Army, is the
former chief of
counterterrorism plans at U.S. European Command and is
currently in
Baghdad
with Multi-National Forces-Iraq.
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
|
| posted by J.R. @ 8:23:00 AM |
|
|
|
| COUNTRIES WITH TROOPS AND MILITARY PERSONNEL IN IRAQ |
| Sunday, September 26, 2004 |
In addition to the United States, which has more than
130,000 troops
in Iraq, many other countries have sent military
personnel. The
number of non-American coalition troops is more than
40,000, though
numbers fluctuate.
United Kingdom: 9,000 soldiers
Italy: 3,000 soldiers, some serving as police and
engineers
Poland: 2,400 soldiers
Ukraine: 1,600 soldiers
Netherlands: 1,100 soldiers plus a logistics team, a
field hospital,
military police and 200 engineers
Japan: 1,100 soldiers assigned to reconstruction
Australia: 800 soldiers
Romania: 700 soldiers plus 149 de-mining specialists,
military police
and "special intelligence" members
South Korea: 600 military engineers and medics
Bulgaria: 480 soldiers plus chemical warfare experts
Thailand: 440 soldiers assigned to humanitarian
missions
Denmark: 420 soldiers including medics and military
police
El Salvador: 360 soldiers
Hungary: 300 soldiers
Norway: 179 soldiers, mostly engineers and mine
clearers
Mongolia: 160 soldiers involved in peacekeeping
Azerbaijan: 150 soldiers taking part in law
enforcement and
protection of historic monuments
Portugal: 125 soldiers functioning as police officers
Latvia: 120 soldiers
Lithuania: 115 soldiers
Slovakia: 102 soldiers
Czech Republic: 80 soldiers, serving as police
Philippines: 80 soldiers plus police and medics
Albania: 70 non-combat troops
Georgia: 70 soldiers
New Zealand: 60 army engineers assigned to
reconstruction (expected
to leave in Sept. 2004)
Moldova: 50 soldiers including de-mining specialists
and medics
Macedonia: 35 soldiers
Estonia: 30 soldiers
Kazakhstan: 30 soldiers (expected to leave end of May
2004)
Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq following the
election of Prime
Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on March 14.
Honduras and the
Dominican Republic quickly followed suit. The three
countries
combined had nearly 2,000 troops in Iraq. Nicaragua
withdrew its 115
troops at the end of March 2004 for economic reasons.
Countries that provide non-military support include:
Kuwait and
Qatar, which have hosted the U.S. Central Command and
the invasion
force; Ethiopia and Eritrea, which have given use of
bases or ports;
and Turkey, which has given permission for airspace
use. Others
countries have opted to give political support:
Angola, Costa Rica,
Colombia, Iceland, Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
Mongolia, Palau,
Panama, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda and
Uzbekistan.
In early April 2004, the Bush administration indicated
it was
negotiating with another 50 countries that had
expressed interest in
providing peacekeeping troops.
FOREIGN WORKERS
The exact number of foreign workers in Iraq is hard to
gauge, but
it's at least 30,000. Many work for companies that
have contracts
with the American military to provide support or to
rebuild the
country. Others work for aid agencies.
Companies with U.S. Department of Defence contracts:
Kellogg, Brown and Root
Washington Group International
Fluor Intercontinental
Perini Corporation
Vinnell Corporation
CSC DynCorp International
Companies with U.S. Agency for International
Development contracts:
International Resources Group
Air Force Augmentation Program
Stevedoring Services of America
Creative Associates International
Research Triangle Institute
Abt Associates
Skylink Air and Logistics Support
Bearing Point Inc.
Bechtel (including subcontractors from the UK, Saudi
Arabia, Cyprus,
Kuwait, Switzerland)
Non-governmental organizations with USAID grants:
United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Mercy Corps
International Relief and Development Incorporated
Agriculture Co-operative Development International
Volunteers in Overseas Co-operative Assistance
Co-operative Housing Foundation
Save the Children Federation
Iraqi Nursing Association
|
| posted by J.R. @ 11:33:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Iraqi Nuclear Scientist: Saddam Hid Biological and Chemical WMD (TV Interview) |
|
Iraqi Nuclear Scientist: Saddam Hid Biological and
Chemical WMD (TV Interview)
MEMRI ^ | 8/10/2004
Iraqi Nuclear Scientist: Saddam Hid Biological and
Chemical WMD
Iraqi nuclear scientist Hussein Isma'il Al-Bahdli
spoke about Saddam's nuclear and WMD program on
Al-Fayhaa, the new Iraqi channel broadcasting from the
UAE. The following are excerpts:
Interviewer: Was there a real reason for the fears of
the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
Al-Bahdli: Certainly, because had Saddam's program
continued according to plan, he would have achieved
this weapon and it is impossible that he would have
kept this kind of weapon only for defensive purposes.
Interviewer: In a nutshell, how much time did Iraq
need, before the Gulf War, to reach the manufacturing
of a nuclear bomb?
Al-Bahdli: According to the information I was privy to
at the time, perhaps a limited number of years. Within
two years or less, he could have�?
Interviewer: Would this have been a primitive or
advanced bomb?
Al-Bahdli: He could undoubtedly have reached the stage
of carrying out a nuclear explosion and as a result of
this he could have continued manufacturing a nuclear
bomb if he had the required raw materials.
Interviewer: The fears in the UN, the inspection
commissions and all that happened�? Did Iraq have
biological or chemical weapons, manufactured or
purchased, that were hidden?
Al-Bahdli: The truth is that there is no doubt that in
the early stages of inspection there were remnants of
what was destroyed following the invasion of Kuwait.
Part of this was destroyed, for instance by the
inspection teams who found them on various occasions.
Another part remained hidden and occasionally they
tried to transfer it from one area to another by the
Republican Guard forces that had it in their
possession and were the only forces he would trust
within Iraq.
|
| posted by J.R. @ 11:24:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Gen. Abizaid Blasts Distorted Iraq War Coverage |
|
Gen. Abizaid Blasts Distorted Iraq War Coverage
Centcom Commander General John Abizaid blasted Iraq
war critics in Congress and the press on Sunday for
focusing on isolated cases of bad news while ignoring
the progress being made by the U.S. military in
stabilizing the country.
"The constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is
being lost, that can't be won, of a resistance that is
out of control, simply do not square with the facts on
the ground," Abizaid told NBC's "Meet the Press." "We
need to look at what's happening in the region, as
opposed to the reports of one or two journalists that
happen to think that everybody in Iraq is in the
resistance," he explained.
"If everybody in Iraq was in the resistance," the
Centcom chief argued, "they wouldn't be volunteering
for the armed forces. We've got over 100,000 people
that are trained and equipped now. That number is
going up higher. There is more people that are coming
forward to fight for the future of Iraq than are
fighting against it."
Abizaid warned that the distorted press coverage is
playing right into the hands of the terrorists,
telling "Meet the Press," "Remember that the enemy
wants to break our will. They are experts at
manipulating the media."
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
|
| posted by J.R. @ 2:53:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Kerry vs Article 14 Sec 3 of U.S. Constitution |
|
Jeffrey Mazella
Center for Individual Freedom
26 Sept 04
While it has not been at issue for many years,
probably not since the Reconstruction, Article 14
Section 3 of the US Constitution provides that any
person who has taken an oath of office, as an officer
of the United States, and thereafter gives aid and
comfort to an enemy of the United States, may not
thereafter be or become a civilian or military officer
of the United States.
If John Kerry's virulent anti-war activism circa 1971
constituted the giving of aid and comfort to North
Vietnam (as seems to me self-evident), and if his
recent declamations that America's war in Iraq is "the
wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time," and
that the Bush administration lied and is incompetent
and the war is a disaster, etc., constitutes the
giving of aid and comfort to the Jihad (as seems to me
self-evident), then he is barred from the presidency
by Article 14 Section 3.
I would urge that CFIF, perhaps in cooperation with
the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry and the
Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, should forthwith file a
lawsuit in federal court against the FEC to compel the
FEC to disqualify Kerry from the presidency pursuant
to Article 14 Section 3.
This should be done before the election. Kerry may
not be elected, but if he is, the filing of this
action by anyone at any time during his presidency
would throw his presidency and perhaps the conduct of
any military and / or diplomatic operation into
turmoil, it would be at least as divisive and
disruptive as Watergate, perhaps more so. And, if
successful, would result in the presidency of John
Edwards, a one-term senator with little or no chance
of re-election and with no military, national, or
foreign policy experience, who even according to John
Kerry's standards ("he never served in Vietnam") is
not qualified for the presidency.
Whether the court should ultimately rule that Kerry
is, or is not, disqualified by 14 / 3, the issue needs
to be raised and made a prominent part of the public
debate before the election, not after Kerry's election
or inauguration.
Raymond S. Kraft
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
|
| posted by J.R. @ 2:45:00 PM |
|
| | |
