October 12, 2004

Comments now powered by HaloScan. Click here to read this entry's comments (if any), or to post one of your own.

Old Comments (71)

1. victoria Miko on 12 Oct 2004

   WE LOVE BUSH. WE ARE VOTING FOR HIM, AND YOUR MONEY SOROS, IS NOT GOING TO HELP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH HATRED YOU SPREAD, BUSH WILL WIN!

2. Fred on 19 Oct 2004

   Your are a typical liberal hypocrit. You scream freedom of speech and then want people to try to stop this film from being shown. Where were you when that pack of lies called 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was being shown?

   You disgust me.

3. Elaine of Kalilily on 20 Oct 2004

   Fred--
   1. Moore's movie came out quite a while ago, well before this crucial pre-election time, and it is totally factual (although, granted, the facts are selective). Moore is a professional film maker noted for his controversial documentaries.

   2. Stolen Honor is more opinion and interpretation than factual and has been released strategically to influence pre-election decision making. It was made specifically for that purpose and not as any creative endeavor. That's dirty politics.

   3. In the Vice Presidential debate, Cheney mis-mentioned a web site to check for facts. He said www.factcheck.com instead of factcheck.org. you might want to go the the site that Cheney recommended (WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG) to check your facts. That's a non-partisan site, so you can pretty much trust that it's fair and unbiased.

4. M Albers on 20 Oct 2004

   This film should be shown. What are you worried about. Perhaps the Truth. That John Kerry is a traitor? Not only in 1971 but also recently when he called Allawi a puppet of Bush. That the coalitionwas a farce. Demoralizing our troops once more. This man is so far left that mainstream America can't even see him.
   Sign your 180 John.

5. bob on 20 Oct 2004

   Where is your link for the protest that should have stopped Fahrenheit 9/11?

6. Mike S on 20 Oct 2004

   Where do we sign the petition requesting that "Stolen Honor" be shown on every news outlet across the country and condemning those who are trying to suppress free speech? They can even show that piece of trash and lies (i.e. "Farenheit 9/11") for those who are gullible enough to believe that there's much truth in it.

7. Elaine of Kalilily on 20 Oct 2004

   Have you guys ever seen the movie "Born on the Fourth of July::
   http://www.movietome.com/movietome/servlet/MovieMain/movieid-780/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July/

   or "Deer Hunter" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/

   Americans were both the good guys AND the bad guys in Vietnam. The bad guys were sucked in my military programming to follow orders and not ask questions. The good guys had the good sense to question authority. In between were lots and lots guys whose minds were screwed over by the
   conflict between their morals and their orders, Kerry was one of the good guys. The Swift Boat guys, I imagine, fell in between and hate to admit, even to this day, that they should have let their moral sense win out. It's called "denial." I have a friend who counsels Vietnam Vets who are still suffering from their experiences in Vietnam. And they were not POWs. They were the guys caught between their moral sense and sense of duty. Their consciences and their souls are still in agony over what they did there.

   I suggest that you consult the non-partisan website www.factcheck.org (which is the site that Cheney MEANT to send listeners to during the vice presidential debate. That site is non-biased about digging out the facts.

   Factcheck.org, for example, has a clearly researched piece on that proves "Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq: 09.27.2004 - modified: 09.28.2004

   "Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture. .....

   Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad
   released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

   Here we present this highly misleading ad, along with what Kerry actually said, in full context."

   You might also want to check out http://www.prwatch.org/index.html, the Center for Media and Democracy, which says:

   ".....well-funded and strategic disinformation campaigns mislead and confuse the press and the public and prevent social change. Identifying and exposing the thousands of individuals, corporations and PR firms behind this propaganda has been almost impossible -- until now. The Center for Media and Democracy has launched a new on-line research project, the Disinfopedia, which uses innovative "wiki" technology to create a virtual community of collaborating citizen researchers and journalists. Visit the Disinfopedia, and join our growing team of online muckrakers."

   You might want to do some more in-depth research on non-partisan sites before you form your opinions.

8. Dennis on 20 Oct 2004

   I AM a wounded VietNam veteran. I have a purple heart that took a bullet in the leg and 8 weeks in a hospital to earn - not an ass full od rice and a bandaid. I did that for your freedom to do this net site. Your candidate is a traitor and a weak, sniveling coward. He came back and betrayed everything Americans hold dear. It is my profound hope that Kerry and his dishonorable discharge is displayed to every voter. He is going to lose and thate is little you can do about it.

   Blog on bitch!

9. Bill Henry on 20 Oct 2004

   Listen to what real Viet Nam era POWs have to say about the kind of person that might be your next president if you'de like.

   Follow the link to view excerpts from the documentary film Stolen Honor.

   http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/program-excerpts.asp

   whd

10. Elaine of Kalilily on 20 Oct 2004

    We tend to see the world, not as IT is, but as WE are:

    http://veteransforkerry.home.att.net/

    http://usveteransfortruth.home.att.net/

    http://veteransforkerry.home.att.net/truth_about__slime_boat_sailors_.htm

    http://veteransforkerry.home.att.net/war_heroes_of_the_republican_par.htm

    http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Youmans_012804,00.html

    http://g0lem.net/portal/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=34

11. Alex on 20 Oct 2004

    Hevesi, NYS Comptroller, wrote to Sinclair today:

    "Some critics suggest that Sinclair management is more interested in advancing its partisan political views than in protecting shareholder value. They say Sinclair's partisan agenda also risks alienating viewers, advertisers and regulators,"

    My answer:

    So Mr. Hevesi, CBS can air a one hour "documentary" based on forged documents and ABC is free to air the testimony of three Viet Cong Communist veterans but Sinclair cannot be allowed to air a film made by former Vietnam PoWs about John Kerry.

    That is what we had in Hungary under the Communists. Is that what you would like to have in America?
    
    Alex

12. Michael Moore on 20 Oct 2004

    I don't want this movie to be shown. It might make more money than mine. Then no one will want to see my movies which I only do to make money.

    Michael Moore

13. Elaine of Kalilily on 20 Oct 2004

    Actually, it just occurred to me that the tv stations refused to show Moore's movie. It was just in the theaters and on video and dvd. So, it seems to me, fair is fair. How about Stolen Honor going the same route, and then there's nothing to argue about. Just like Moore's movie: no tv airing. Just the theater and video and dvd. How come no one has noticed that Sinclair wants to do with its movie what Moore was not allowed to do with his. Duh!

    And is someone using Michael Moore's email in vain? (See comment above). Although it does sound like something he would say, doesn't it?

14. Steve on 20 Oct 2004

    Interesting? Was Moore's movie banned from tv or did the networks just choose not to show it? Free speech is free speech. Lets show them Back to back. I just can't decide who should go first. A fat super rich slob pretending to be an average Joe or genuine people in a "real" documentary. I think I would rather watch stolen honor first. Yhat way I won't toss my cookies before watching a good show.

    Steve

15. Jonathan Johnstone on 21 Oct 2004

    I saw Stolen Honor on pay per view. I can see why Kerry is so scared that the American public might see it. I love how all you libs speak so highly of and so vigorously defend a man (Kerry) you obviously don't know. All of a sudden you're all Kerry experts, yet only nine months ago most of you never even heard of him. He is unelectable. Despite all of your hate for bush you can't honestly say that Kerry is a better choice. Suck it up 'till 2008 and try to learn from your mistake. Four more years of hating Bush is infinitely better than the damage this moron would do to the US as president. The moral of this story is "Anybody but Bush" is not a viable option

16. Glenn Fischer on 21 Oct 2004

    I would like to see Stolen Honor. I believe it is just since the liberals had Cheese Burger Moore's film Farenheit 9/11. So why is everybody scared of the truth? Kerry has not denied any of the charges brought up about him. I believe the american people need to know who Kerry really is before they vote. You would not want people to vote for the wrong person right.

    I want everybody to read this and think about what I have writen.

    Kerry looked into the Camera in St.Louis and said he would not raise taxes on middle class. This is a flat out LIE! How is he going to pay for all his plans with out raising taxes some where on the middle class like sales tax? Look at his record he is for raising our taxes. I want to control my own money not have the government control me.
    

    I want a president who is strong on defense not one who pretends and votes against it. For example 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait there was a strong collation a big Global test and then Kerry voted against the war. So Mr. Kerry and all you libs what gives where do you stand? But Kerry stated he wanted Clinton to go to war with Iraq when he was in office. So what gives he will only support a Democratic president for war? I voted for body armor for our troops before I voted against. That’s a real winner of a man. Vote for Kerry if you want to kiss every terrorists ass on the globe.
    

    One thing I would like everybody to think about 3rd term abortion! That child can breathe; it moves and can live on its own. But I guess it is all right to kill baby’s by sucking its brains out with a needle. That’s what Kerry and the war protestor’s state our soldiers were doing in Vietnam and are doing now in Iraq committing atrocities killing babies? So I guess it is ok for abortion to kill babies. I don’t want to pay for others to have a one night stand and say it was a mistake 9 months later.
    

    Kerry stated he committed atrocities in 1971 so why is he not in jail did he get a pardon? Why did Kerry meet with the North Vietnamese in Paris? Why is Kerry a war hero for the North Vietnamese and not America? Why has he not apologized for his action against his own country?
    

    I will vote for Bush! Unless any liberal out there can answer my questions and can promise to pay me the money I will lose when Kerry’s raises my taxes so I can afford Health Care for my family. I am middel class and not part of the 1 percent.
    

    I welcome any reply to this email from anyone and I repeat anyone especially if can answer these questions? gmfischer@yahoo.com

17. Elaine of Kalilily on 21 Oct 2004

    This is my final comment here:
    Vote for someone with conscience and compassion; with the intelligence, eloquence, and perspective to lead a nation that must be a crucial contributor to global cooperation; who has personally experienced the horrors of war; who believes in the separation of church and state; who is not in the pockets of the "haves and have mores."

    Otherwise, my final post on this issue is at
    http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/20/200411.html

    May the best man win.

18. Kenneth Huffmaster on 21 Oct 2004

    As the son of a Vietnam veteran, I think it should be required viewing before any one votes! p.s. Bravo! Glenn Fischer.

19. Peter King on 21 Oct 2004

    Elaine,

    Where was John Kerry’s conscience and compassion when he used the anti-war movement to further his own carefully scripted personal political agenda to the discredit and considerable discomfort of Americans still serving in Vietnam and in Viet Cong prisons? And, aren’t you confusing craftiness and generally devious behavior with intelligence. And you have apparently missed the fact that Kerry’s current eloquence and perspective does not reflect his long history of extreme left wing views. Look at his Senate record and compare it with new found “positions” on the issues that he feels will garner him the most votes. The current John Kerry is merely the creation of his political handlers and speech writers. It is obvious that today’s John Kerry has been conjured from the cauldron of left wing political thought and opportunism.

    There are a great many Americans who have experienced the “horrors of war” and never found it necessary to turn their back on their country and fellow soldiers. Although, unlike Kerry, I do not know a single Vietnam Vet who served less than one full year. I guess they were not as anxious as Lt. Kerry to escape those “horrors or war” even to the extent of writing his own citations and medal recommendations.

    And about the separation of Church and State -- give me a break! Do you seriously believe that Kerry would not abandon whatever his current position may be if the polls indicated that a reversal might reap a few votes or achieve him some other personal political advantage?

    I won’t dignify the “haves and have mores” comment with a response. This is the same hollow, divisive, class-war mongering argument that, like Kerry’s spurious claim that Bush will somehow dismantle Social Security, is trotted out by liberals every four years.

    If “global cooperation” means subjecting national interests to the completely irrelevant United Nations or to certain European non-powers, then I am certainly not in favor of it. It strikes me as strange that Mr. Kerry has not joined others in acknowledging the obvious fact that the United States was never going to gain the support of nation states that were on Saddam Hussein’s payroll. Either Kerry is naive, or disingenuous in the extreme, or both.

    After recovering from my amazement at the DNC’s selection of Kerry as its candidate, I assumed that the election of the next President would be a “no-brainer” for most voters. Imagine my disillusionment and disappointment at seeing Kerry’s poll numbers closely following those of President Bush. What are you people thinking?!?

20. Bob Semple on 21 Oct 2004

    Elaine,

    What reality are you in? Questioning if we've watched "The Deer Hunter" or "The 4th of July" is indicative of a typical liberal guilt trip. Too often I find Hollywood views of reality seeping into the mindset of those who use movies to escape reality.

    I hope anyone who reads your blog will have the intelligence to research the facts. Rational people should be able to discern if "Stolen Honor" is as biased and politically intended as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" (documentary). Did I miss something, or are most these responses from those who don't share your views?

21. Elaine of Kalilily on 21 Oct 2004

    I've made my final comment on this fruitless and futile discussion, and it's at
    http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/21/165248.html

    And the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" was based on the memoir (TRUE STORY) by Ron Kovic, a patriotic young man who enlists in the military in 1968, believing that the United States' efforts in Vietnam are a worthy cause. But during his second tour of duty, a bullet pierces his spine and leaves him paralyzed. When he returns to the States, he finds that his views of the war have changed, and he begins speaking out against it.

    And, while "The Deer Hunter" is fictional, it represents the spirit of the stories that many Vets -- not just Kerry -- came home telling so that the rest of America would start thinking.

    And so that's just what some of us, unlike our president, became used to doing: THINKING.

22. Steve on 22 Oct 2004

    perhaps No disrespect to Ron Kovic, Edwards and Kerry could stop by and heal him. After all Hairboy Johnny E says that Porta John Kerry will have the ability to heal people as president.

    Steve

23. Glenn Fischer on 22 Oct 2004

    I was sent this from a friend of my fathers I though it was a good read so I will share it with you all. Also you my respond to my comments at gmfischer2004@yahoo.com sorry I gave the wrong address last time.

    "In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.
    

    This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things.
    

    Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are and, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.
    

    Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.
    

    It is said that America's WW II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.
    

    This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."
    

    October 6, 2004 issue of the Ellensburg Daily Record, (Ellensburg, Washington), Mathew Manweller, Central Washington University political science professor
    
    
    Kenneth J. Cary
    Apache Crew Trainers

    
    So if you want a weak America Vote for Kerry. I would rather be fear by being strong than people thinking they can push American around. A vote for Bush show we are strong and commited to our conviction for democracy.

    Glenn Fischer

24. Glenn Fischer on 22 Oct 2004

    I got just few more thing to say Elaine. I come from a family with a long line of military vet. I have had a relative in every war in this country. I have a famous Relative I sure you have read about him in your history books.

    
    General Robert E. Lee, My father Served in Veitnam 2 Tours with honors 2 Silver stars, 1 bronze star, 1 purple heart and countless other medals and ribbons.

    I served in the Marine Corp during Desert Storm and was awarded a bronze star for valor as an infantry solider with an Honorable Discharge. I am the first Marine in my family and I will not be the last for my 2 sons have vowed to serve this counrty when there tims comes. For the rest of my family has served in the Air force, Army and Navy.

    I have 2 cousins in Iraq right now. My family believes in keeping America safe and free. So you and others can critize us and call us baby killers and war mongers.

    But remeber we make it possible for you and other to have your voices heard and to vote. If Kerry is elected you will see a decline in people going into the military and a rush to get out.

    I left the Military soon after Clinton got elected because he would not stand up for what is right. I guess he was to busy smoking a cigar up Monica's dress.

    Not paying attention to what was going on in the world. I guess thats why Clinton apleased the North Koreans and gave them Nuclear Material to produce Nukes.

    As for Kerry's Global Test. America would only be able to defend it self after UN approval, in Blue helmets and under control of the UN.

    Can anyone explain to me how colored people can support the democrats when some of them belong or have belonged to the Klu Klux Klan?

    No wonder they can't get a head in life the libs want to keep them depended on the government for hand outs.

    Still voting for BUSH,

    Glenn Fischer

25. Ken on 22 Oct 2004

    Ya lets all get together and ban the rights of others who don't see things the way others want us to: Why should we worry about terrorists when we have those in our own free country shutting out the other side of the story: I do thank you though I was leaning to vote for Kerry but I prefer a free country not one of hate and mistrust which is evedintly what you are afraid of by banning others veiws...Or you are really afraid of what you may find out..

26. ken on 22 Oct 2004

    Oh just as a note as for Kerry and stem search science...Thats all just plitical who-ha. He wants to help research better drugs and keep this country honerable ask him his plans on medical marijuana and death with dignity----both of which he has proposed fighting any state that votes for them. His idea research is if its the political thing to do..personaly..I believe whatever it takes to help the ill and disabled do it as long as it dosent hurt or mame others in the process...Kerry wants to be on the high road but for all the wrong reasons

27. chequette on 22 Oct 2004

    What ever happened to freedom of speech ?

    Fact: after returning from Vietnam Mr.Kerry in 1971 he went to the Foreign relations committe and acused the military of commiting war crimes.

    Fact: Mr. Kerry was a part of the VVAW(veterans against the war)
    Fact: Because of his statements to the committe, Vietnam the country felt that the POW where not POW anymore but war criminals and as such they where treated . Many Pows where airforce personnel that where shot down. There is no way possible of shotdown pilots commiting any war crimes especially after bieg shot down.

    
    Thats what this Documentry is about.

    Fact: Mrs. Fonda apologized to the same POW`s that this documentry is showing becuase she actually realized that what she was saying and doing was in fact hurting our Pow`s in Vietnam. Vietnamese where using Mrs. Fondas and Mr. Kerry`s words against them and even after the conflict was over Vietnam, Vietnamese wanted to give the POW`s a war trial for execution.

    Unless I hear or watch a documentry from other POW`s

    
    Many people supporting Mr. Kerry as I was I say was as past tense
    John Kerry spoke at this 1970 anti-Vietnam War rally in Valley Forge, Pa., along with activist Jane Fonda. Mr. Kerry can be seen in the background, directly behind Miss Fonda. You can find Pics of this all over the net!

    Fact: In 1988 Mrs, fonda apologizes on a barbar walters show and again in 2001

    I beleive that this is the message that the documentry is portraying , I dont think that this is some political ploy at all after all the Documentor actually won a pultzer for other films , Mr. Kerry was offered by these POW`s and by sinclair to go on after the documentry aired to rebutt , but Mr. kerry has declined , he has not been asked nor answered any questions from the press. What then Mr.kerry , why wont you answer these questions why wont you appear in say CNN HARDBALL FOX you know the real media instead ill go to night shows comedian shows instead of any real news channel that will question you ! Real questions. jesus you even went on readers digest ! What are you so afraid of ! Im not even sure anymore who is running for president you or al gore or clinton , peronnally you should of let howard dean get the nomination thats who hilary endoresed thats who al gore endoresed. I didnt care much for the sound.
    I dont know how you passed Dean you have the poer dean! ooh which reminds me stop using Deans material! you know Wrong war wrong time!

    I hope that everyone votes with facts and not based on opinions that facts are there I found them its just a matter of putting aside your political views and vote with facts. thats what I did and alot of other democrats are doing. dont vote republican or democrat nor independent , vote with facts and whomever the facts lead you to . You have your mind your own freedoms that many military men and women have given thier lives for , so please at least honor these men by looking for facts.

    
    http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
    http://www.the-patriot-s-voice.com/id97.html
    http://www.warbirdforum.com/kerry.htm
    http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/hanoijane.net/archive.htm#feb9
    http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm - this one is Mr. kerry on the issues for those of you that just beleive that this propaganda
    
    and for those of you that dont beleive Iraq was necessary here is the DUELFER report that the media doesnt want you to know read it .
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/duelfer-sasc-20041006.html

28. chequette on 22 Oct 2004

    What ever happened to freedom of speech ?

    Fact: after returning from Vietnam Mr.Kerry in 1971 he went to the Foreign relations committe and acused the military of commiting war crimes.

    Fact: Mr. Kerry was a part of the VVAW(veterans against the war)
    Fact: Because of his statements to the committe, Vietnam the country felt that the POW where not POW anymore but war criminals and as such they where treated . Many Pows where airforce personnel that where shot down. There is no way possible of shotdown pilots commiting any war crimes especially after bieg shot down.

    
    Thats what this Documentry is about.

    Fact: Mrs. Fonda apologized to the same POW`s that this documentry is showing becuase she actually realized that what she was saying and doing was in fact hurting our Pow`s in Vietnam. Vietnamese where using Mrs. Fondas and Mr. Kerry`s words against them and even after the conflict was over Vietnam, Vietnamese wanted to give the POW`s a war trial for execution.

    Unless I hear or watch a documentry from other POW`s

    
    Many people supporting Mr. Kerry as I was I say was as past tense
    John Kerry spoke at this 1970 anti-Vietnam War rally in Valley Forge, Pa., along with activist Jane Fonda. Mr. Kerry can be seen in the background, directly behind Miss Fonda. You can find Pics of this all over the net!

    Fact: In 1988 Mrs, fonda apologizes on a barbar walters show and again in 2001

    I beleive that this is the message that the documentry is portraying , I dont think that this is some political ploy at all after all the Documentor actually won a pultzer for other films , Mr. Kerry was offered by these POW`s and by sinclair to go on after the documentry aired to rebutt , but Mr. kerry has declined , he has not been asked nor answered any questions from the press. What then Mr.kerry , why wont you answer these questions why wont you appear in say CNN HARDBALL FOX you know the real media instead ill go to night shows comedian shows instead of any real news channel that will question you ! Real questions. jesus you even went on readers digest ! What are you so afraid of ! Im not even sure anymore who is running for president you or al gore or clinton , peronnally you should of let howard dean get the nomination thats who hilary endoresed thats who al gore endoresed. I didnt care much for the sound.
    I dont know how you passed Dean you have the poer dean! ooh which reminds me stop using Deans material! you know Wrong war wrong time!

    I hope that everyone votes with facts and not based on opinions that facts are there I found them its just a matter of putting aside your political views and vote with facts. thats what I did and alot of other democrats are doing. dont vote republican or democrat nor independent , vote with facts and whomever the facts lead you to . You have your mind your own freedoms that many military men and women have given thier lives for , so please at least honor these men by looking for facts.

    
    http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
    http://www.the-patriot-s-voice.com/id97.html
    http://www.warbirdforum.com/kerry.htm
    http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/hanoijane.net/archive.htm#feb9
    http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm - this one is Mr. kerry on the issues for those of you that just beleive that this propaganda
    
    and for those of you that dont beleive Iraq was necessary here is the DUELFER report that the media doesnt want you to know read it .
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/duelfer-sasc-20041006.html

29. Elaine of Kalilily on 22 Oct 2004

    Yes, indeed, vote with the facts, particularly the ones you find in non-partisan sites like the Cheney-recommended www.factcheck.org.

    The remainder of my latest responses to all of you can be found here:
    http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/22/100219.html

    http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/22/093831.html

    http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/21/231955.html

    http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/21/165248.html (this one includes more non-partisan links)

30. chequette on 22 Oct 2004

    There again Mrs.kalilily you only show or dare to talk about a one sided approach to your blog responses what she also failed again to say is that in factcheck.org also speaks against Mr.Kerry`s statement bloging doesnt make it fact but finding the truth gives you the Power over others that refuse to see and find the answers
    Fact check . org in the archives section says that and ad ran saying that Mr. Kerry missed 76% of intellegence meeting fact check agrees and goes on to read that theu think Mr.Kerry missed even more than 75% thats not the only one
    theres Mr. kerry and the economy where they say kerry is wrong that the ecomy is in fact getting better
    Mr. kerry blames the president for outsourcing factcheck says that its not true thats been in place for a long time and that Mr. kerry would do barely anything against it

    factcheck talks about everyone but you have to actually get on the site and check it on your own and make your own mind dont take my word for it check it . its there !

    I will continue
    edwards lies , he falsley acusses that bush has raised taxes

    Gephart edwards Mr. Kerry have all said bush has lost more jobs than any other 11 past presidents again not true according to factcheck . org Mr. Reagan did

    John Kerry didn’t make it through the third paragraph of his formal announcement speech before stumbling over a key fact about the U.S. economy. In his Sept. 2 speech in South Carolina, Kerry claimed the U.S. is suffering “the greatest job loss since the Great Depression.” That’s wrong. according to factcheck .org

    Comparing the current job slump to the Great Depression is ludicrous. In the 1929-1933 economic disaster an estimated one in four American worker were idle. There’s been nothing remotely like it since. In the Bush slump unemployment peaked at 6.4% before it started to decline due to strong economic growth. The unemployment rate has been higher than that in seven of the nine previous slumps going back to 1950. The worst unemployment since the Great Depression actually was in Ronald Reagan's first term, when it peaked at 10.8% in November and December of 1982.

    Kerry based his claim on raw numbers of jobs lost, but he still got it wrong. The standard measure of payroll jobs -- what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "total nonfarm employment" -- declined by just over 2.7 million between its peak in February 2001 and August 2003, when it hit bottom. That's fewer jobs lost than in the much more severe Reagan downturn, when more than 2.8 million jobs were lost.

    Furthermore, Kerry's distortion is even worse when population growth is taken into account.Measured as a percentage of peak employment, Bush's job loss was just over 2% of all jobs, compared to more than 3% in the Reagan downturn.

    Analysts at the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute state that this was “the worst hiring slump since the Great Depression,” but they were careful – as Kerry and many other Democrats are not – to make clear that they were speaking only of private sector jobs, not total jobs. But the EPI statement is itself misleading, ignoring the fact that government hiring grew even while private-sector businesses shed jobs. As a result, looking only at private jobs makes the job picture look more bleak than it really is. It is true that nearly 3.3 million private sector jobs disappeared between the peak of employment in February 2001 and the depth of the job slump in August, 2003. And that is the highest number of private-sector jobs lost during any slump since 1939 when records first were kept. But that 'record' is due mainly to population growth, not to the severity of this downturn.

    Furthermore, many of the government jobs that EPI’s analysis ignores are better than the private sector jobs that disappeared. For proof of this, look no further than the 50,000 federal airport security screeners who now work for the Transportation Safety Administration, replacing low-wage contract employees.

    this information is at factcheck. org

31. chequette on 22 Oct 2004

    this is strait from factcheck .org that mrskalilily

    starit lies in the american public face at Democratic Debate
    Straining the Facts at Iowa's debate on Sunday Jan. 4

    January 5, 2004
    Modified: January 13, 2004
    Dean kept understating the size of the tax cut he wants to repeal and glossed over his political motivation for sealing records from his terms as governor. Kucinich misled with a claim that a steelworker pays as high a tax rate as someone making $400,000 a year. And Gephardt said he'd gladly support a ban on donations from lobbyists, without mentioning the millions he has received from interest groups.

    
    Analysis

    Tax Fibs

    Dean once again understated the value of the Bush tax cuts that he has promised to repeal:

    Dean: Well, we've got to look at the big picture. If you make over $1 million, you've got a $112,000 tax cut. Sixty percent of us got a $304 tax cut .

    Actually, as we've said before, half of all US households got more than $470 according to the Tax Policy Center. Dean arrives at his figure by averaging in the cuts received by the bottom 60% of households, which includes all those who paid no taxes in the first place and thus got no cut. But as we've pointed out before, that's just as misleading as averaging in the cuts received by the top 60%, which produces a figure of $1,948. By Dean's logic, President Bush could claim that 60 percent of us got nearly $2,000 and he'd be just as correct as Dean. Which is to say, not very. (All these figures -- Dean's and ours -- are calculated from a table posted by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.)

    Dean wasn't alone: Kucinich gave a distorted picture of who bears the tax burden:

    Kucinich: Well, you know, when you consider that a steelworker who's making $40,000 a year has virtually the same tax burden as someone who's making $400,000 a year, you see that there are inequities.

    But that's generally untrue even after the two Bush tax cuts, as can be seen in this table:

    Average Effective Tax Rates 2003
    
    (Combined Federal Income, Social Security and Medicare Taxes)
    
    
    
    Income (thousands)
    Rate
    
    Less than 10
    
    3.0
    
    10-20
    
    7.0
    
    20-30
    
    13.7
    
    30-40
    
    17.6
    
    40-50
    
    18.8
    
    50-75
    
    20.1
    
    75-100
    
    21.4
    
    100-200
    
    23.7
    
    200-500
    
    26.7
    
    500-1,000
    
    28.7
    
    More than 1,000
    
    27.4
    
    Source: Tax Policy Center Table 2
    
    Even counting Social Security and Medicare taxes along with federal income taxes, households with between $40,000 and $50,000 in income pay an average, combined tax rate just under 19%, much less than the nearly 27% rate paid by those whose income falls between $200,000 and $500,000 a year, according to figures published by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    It is true that a rich person who gets most or all their income from stock dividends and capital gains, and little or nothing from salary or other sources, would pay a lower tax rate than the sort of working person Kucinich mentioned. That's because the tax bill signed last year cuts the rate on dividend and capital gains income to 15%. However, such examples of the idle rich are not the rule and it's incorrect to imply otherwise.

    (Note: The Dean campaign sent us an objection to this article on Jan. 13, the full text of which is posted here)

    Dean's Papers

    Dean said he was protecting the privacy of homosexuals and others by refusing to release immediately all his papers as governor of Vermont .

    Dean: I think if somebody is gay and they write me that, and they don't care to have that information disclosed to the public, that's their right.

    What Dean failed to mention was that the sealing of his records was also motivated by a desire to protect himself. "We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor," he told statehouse reporters last year at the time of the sealing, according to The New York Times and The Boston Globe. And although aides later said Dean was joking, Dean's lawyer David M. Rocchio was quoted by the Times as saying that an “extra argument” for sealing the records is that "People who are in competition with him right now will look for ways to distort him based on his record.”

    Terrorism

    Dean argued that the US is less safe as a result of the Iraq invasion, but got it wrong when he said military jets were escorting airlines “for the first time.”

    Dean: But the fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace.

    Actually, scrambling fighter jets to intercept and escort airliners has been fairly common ever since Sept. 11, 2001 . T he North American Aerospace Defense Command has scrambled more than 1,600 such missions since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon more than two years ago, according to a news report by the French news agency. "Sometimes they're scrambled because someone has violated a restricted airspace, sometimes they're scrambled because an airliner will squawk an emergency frec (frequency) and so we have to go and respond to that and there are other situations we can't discuss," the article quoted NORAD spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Garza.

    Medicare

    Gephardt again dragged up a misleading figure from 1995 claiming Dean was in league with Republicans trying to cut Medicare by $270 billion.

    Gephardt: The Republicans tried to cut Medicare by $270 billion. And Bill Clinton and the Democrats fought them off . . . At that time, you were head of the governors' association, and you agreed with their proposal.

    Dean did speak approvingly back then of a Republican proposal in the Senate that would have reined in Medicare spending growth by $270 billion over seven years. But if slowing the growth of spending is a “cut” then the Democrats were proposing one, too. The Clinton administration was proposing to slow Medicare spending by $124 billion over the same period.

    Lobbyists

    Gephardt happily agreed with Edwards to support a ban on political donations from lobbyists, but made no mention of his own heavy reliance on special-interest money.

    Edwards: So you would agree with my proposal to ban contributions from lobbyists? Were you saying yes to that? You're for that?

    Gephardt: Yes.

    Edwards: OK.

    
    Gephardt: . . . I'm with you.

    But according to a tabulation by the Center on Responsive Politics, Gephardt's various campaigns have received $8 million from political action committee's since 1989 -- amounting to one dollar of every five he has raised. Counting both PAC money and donations from individuals, Gephardt got $4.4 million from lawyers and lobbyists during that period, making that industry his biggest supporter by far. In second place is the beer, wine and liquor industry at $1.3 million, and in third is the real-estate industry at $1.2 million.

    To be sure, it isn't necessarily inconsistent to take lobbyists' money while advocating a ban. In fact, Edwards himself is heavily funded by fellow trial lawyers even though he turns away money from registered lobbyists. But we thought you would like to know.

    Jobs

    Carol Moseley Braun set a new standard of exaggeration in castigating President Bush's handling of the economy:

    Moseley Braun: The worst president on the economy, in terms of jobs, 6 million jobs lost.

    Actually, the economy hasn't lost anything close to 6 million jobs. As of the latest figures released last month, the economy had 2.3 million fewer total jobs in November than when Bush took office. Even at the worst of the job slump last July, the job loss was just 2.7 million.

    Enjoy

32. chequette on 22 Oct 2004

    wow thats alot of info how about going to the

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/duelfer-sasc-20041006.html

    If not I can evaluate and if not evaluate yourself Mr. Kerry talked about this report on his debate read it all not just small parts

    THE DUELFER report
    this is strait information from the mouth of MR. DUELFER to the house of the armed forces commitee

    here is a little taste The report consists of six chapters. It includes at the end a time line showing key events that bear on the Iraqi WMD program.

    Aiming to introduce the reader to the Iraqi frame of reference, the report begins with an analysis of the nature of the regime and its aims, in chapter one.

    As compared with most countries, fathoming the intentions of the regime is made easier in Iraq, because it really boils down to understanding one person, Saddam Hussein, who was the regime.

    The highly personalized nature of the Iraqi dictatorship under Saddam with its multiplicity of security organs and unclear, often overlapping lines of authority, progressively created a governmental system of operating alien to those steeped in the norms of Western democracy.

    An understanding of the workings of the Iraqi system of governance is important so that the evidence or the lack of evidence can be evaluated within the frame of reference of Baghdad, and not the frame of reference of Washington, London, or Canberra.

    For example, given the nature of Iraqi governance, one should not look for much of an audit trail on WMDs.

    Even Saddam’s most senior ministers did not want to be in a position to tell him bad news or make recommendations from which he would recoil.

    The most successful and long-lived advisers were those who could anticipate his intentions.

    Hence, there was a very powerful rule for implicit guidance.

    This is particularly the case for the most sensitive issues, such as actions related to human rights or weapons of mass destruction.

    This dynamic limits the evidence that one might expect to find; that is, little documentation or senior advisers who could honestly say that they had instructions on certain matters.

    This, of course, makes it risky to draw conclusions about the absence of evidence, a continuous problem that was found in Iraq.

    Further obfuscating the picture is the fact that Baghdad had a long experience in dealing with inspection by western outsiders.

    From the experience of dealing with U.N. inspectors, the Iraqis learned a great deal about what signatures we looked for.

    And I point out, I spent many years in that activity myself.

    Iraqis generally knew a lot more about us than we did about them.

    For various reasons, their ability and desire to conceal their intentions and capabilities were quite good.

    Beyond a discussion of how the regime operated, the report also provides a sense of Saddam’s goals, aspirations and political vision as a means to better understand his decisions about WMD, their development, use, and destruction and role in the future realization of his political-military aims for the Iraqi nation.

    We have tried to understand his objectives and how he developed and used power.

    I’d point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam established as his prime objective, taking into account survival, of course, his prime objective was the termination of U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

    And he weighed all policy actions and steps for their impact on this overarching objective.

    Saddam committed the brightest minds and much national treasure to developing weapons of mass destruction.

    Moreover, Saddam saw this investment as having paid vital dividends.

    Senior Iraqis state that only through the use of long-range ballistic missiles and the extensive use of chemical weapons did Iraq avoid defeat in the war with Iran.

    And there was a second, less obvious, instance where the regime attributes its survival to the possession of WMD.

    In the run-up to the 1991 war, Iraq loaded, dispersed, and Saddam pre-delegated the authority to use biological and chemical weapons, if the coalition proceeded to Baghdad.

    The regime and Saddam believed that the possession of WMD deterred the United States from going to Baghdad in 1991.

    Moreover, it has been clear in my discussions with senior Iraqis that they clearly understand that they blundered in invading Kuwait before completing the nuclear weapons program.

    Had they waited, the outcome would have been quite different.

    Finally, Saddam also used chemical weapons for domestic purposes, in the late ’80s against the Kurds and, as we learned in our work at ISG, during the Shia uprisings immediately after 1991 war.

    Again, this first chapter, aspects of Saddam’s decision-making were examined by identification of several key inflection points, when Saddam made a choice affecting WMD. Several such points have been identified and dissected to see the dynamics of these decisions.

    This tool of using a time line and identifying key inflection points was also useful in tracking his strategy and tactics toward the United Nations and the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

    Saddam’s personal direction of much of Iraq’s relations with the U.N. reflected his approach to influence, and is described in some detail in the report.

    Overall, the hope is that not only will we see what Saddam decided to do with WMD, but why.

    This may be instructive for future policy considerations, and certainly for future intelligence considerations.

    The second chapter of the report is an extensive analysis of Iraq’s financing and procurement, a bid to identify the resources available to Baghdad and examine how they were allocated.

    We made it a high priority to obtain complete information from the oil ministry and the state oil marketing organization. These data were extremely valuable in obtaining an understanding of how the regime operated and its priorities.

    This is a way of bounding the problem, in a sense. Because Iraq had limited resources, that was one of the ways we could delimit our analysis. It turned out to be quite instructive.

    Our investigation makes clear the top priority for Saddam was to escape the economic strangle-hold of the U.N. sanctions. The sanctions limited his ambitions in many ways and took an enormous toll on Iraqi society. The disintegration of the middle class, civil infrastructure, the health system, and the blight on the hope of young Iraqis were clear through the ’90s.

    The U.N. Security Council, in attempting to mitigate the effects of sanctions on innocent Iraqis, created the oil-for-food program. It is instructive that the regime rejected the opportunity to export oil for civil goods until conditions were so bad that they threatened survival of the regime.

    Chapter two — this chapter — makes clear the range of steps the regime took to erode support for and the efficacy of the U.N. sanctions program.

    The steps the regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the oil-for-food program were used.

    Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq in, roughly the 2000 to 2001 time frame, was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside of sanctions.

    Moreover, illicit revenues grew to quite substantial levels during the same period, and it is instructive to see how and where the regime allocated these funds.

    Our investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the oil-for-food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions.

    The regime followed a pattern that Saddam has applied throughout his career, offering rewards and a rationale for accepting them, successfully arguing its case that the sanctions were harming the innocent and that the moral choice was to elude and diminish them.

    It is grossly obvious how successful the regime was. It is also grossly obvious how the sanctions perverted, not just the national system of finance and economics but, to some extent, international markets and organizations.

    The procurement and finance section notes that a sizable portion of the illicit revenues generated under the oil-for-food program went to the Military Industrial Commission; that is the government-run military industrial establishment.

    The funding for this organization, which had responsibility for many of the past WMD programs, went from approximate $7.8 million in 1998 to $350 million in 2001. During this period of growing resource availability, many military programs were carried out, including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council.

    And I would note that some members of the Security Council participated in violating those very same resolutions.

    The remaining four chapters deal with the different types of WMD programs, which Iraq had previously worked.

    The first of these is a delivery system chapter describes the work Iraq had bee pursuing with respect to missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

    Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf War. Some missile activity was permitted, in fact, by the U.N. resolution.

    Saddam drew a distinction, however, between long-range missiles and other WMDs, a distinction not drawn in the U.N. resolutions.

    Iraqi’s missile development infrastructure continued to develop under sanctions, and included work on propulsion, fuels and even guidance systems.

    As more funding became available following the implementation of the OFF program, the oil-for-food program, Saddam directed more missile activities.

    In the latter years, more foreign assistance was brought in, including both technology and technical expertise.

    While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long-range missile, there was little work done on warheads.

    It is apparent that he drew the line at that point so long as sanctions remained.

    However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems is time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a nonconventional warhead on the missile, this could be done quite quickly.

    The chemical weapons and biological weapon warheads put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.

    A couple of points are of interest from the Iraqi missile efforts.

    One is that they did not abide by the range limits set in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 {910 kb pdf, 910 kb pdf}.

    The range capabilities of the ballistic missiles they were developing exceeded the stated limits.

    Iraq also used components from SA-2 — those are surface-to-air missile engines — that they had been expressly prohibited from doing.

    Iraq also produced fuel that was not declared.

    They also tested UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, in excess of the range limits.

    Iraq missile developers became so confident that other would violate the sanctions that they designed new missile systems which depended upon the import of guidance systems which were prohibited by sanctions.

    Further, they drew upon foreign expertise that was readily available for such areas as propulsion; again, in violation of the sanctions.

    The next chapter is on nuclear programs, and it reviews the program up to the 1991 war and describes the activities of the scientists and engineers following the war.

    The analysis shows that despite Saddam’s expressed desire to retain knowledge of his nuclear team and his attempts to retain some key parts of the program, during the course of the following 12 years Iraq’s ability to produce a weapon decayed steadily.

    Sanctions and inspections lasted longer than Saddam anticipated. The inspections were also much more intrusive than expected. Therefore, retention of weapons material put at risk his higher immediate objective of escaping sanctions.

    Nevertheless, Saddam’s son-in-law and chief weapons development manager, Hussein Kamal, directed that design information and very limited physical material be hidden from inspectors. These concealment efforts were successful until Hussein Kamal himself, the son-in-law, fled to Jordan in 1995.

    There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas.

    However, over time, there was decay in the team.

    Unlike other WMD areas, nuclear weapons development requires thousands of knowledgeable scientists, as well as a large physical plant.

    Even with the intention of keeping these talented people employed, a natural decay took place, and the time it would take for Iraq to build a nuclear weapon tended to increase for the duration of the sanctions.

    The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission utilized the same people in a range of projects during the 1990s and addressed technical problems akin to those in nuclear weapons development.

    These efforts, however, cannot be explicitly tied to an intention to revive a nuclear weapons program.

    Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions.

    agin in case you cannot read

    
    Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions.

33. Elaine of Kalilily on 22 Oct 2004

    You guys don't get it either. I read factcheck.org to get both sides so that I can make my own carefully researched intelligent decision. As I said elsewhere, both candidates are politicians seekig election. They each have their assets and their debits. In my estimation, to which I am entitled, Kerry's assets far outweigh Bush's to help fix what Bush messed up both in the country and out of it. And I can live with his debits. But I can't live with Bush's. Neither is perfect. However, Bush is more imperfect.

34. melanie on 22 Oct 2004

    When is "Stolen Honor" on?

35. chequette on 22 Oct 2004

    Which assets would thoes be ?

    He says wrong war wrong time!

    (by the way that comes from Mr. Dean )

    But the duelfer report and DR. Kay went to the house of the armed forces commitee and laid thier testament before them Saying that yes we The united states was right in changing the terrorist regime there. And you cannot argue that fact . You cannot argue the fact that historical elections took place in Afganistan you cannot argue the fact that millions of women where freed from Male men that did not allow them to think for themselves. You mam cannot argue the fact Mr. Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen its in the 9/11 commision report ita all there . You cannot argue the fact that Mr. Kerry will do and say just about anthing to get into office . You cannot argue the fact that the UN did not want to give the vote in the security council becuase many countrys like the french the germans the russians had millions and millions of cash flowing to thier country you just cannot . You cannot argue the fact that when you tell other countrys like poland brittian australia and the other 26 or so countrys in Iraq with the USA are "NOT A REAL COALITION A COALITION OF THE BRIBED" and expect other counrtys to follow the US into a war . You cannot argue the fact that in his first debate with the President he said he wanted to give Iran nuclear material to see if they would use it for WMD or not. you cannot argue with that in 1st gulf war when iraq invaded kuwait that Mr kerry voted against I say again against the use of force against Iraq even though the US had 100% support from the UN. You cannot argue the fact that UN stands by and condems countrys for atrcites against women children religous beleives and the UN does nothing , nothing for instance BOSNIA CHECHNYA RAWANDA SUDAN NORTH KOREA all the un does is condem while many people suffer and die . You cannot argue the fact that after the US attacked Iraq there was a country that gave up it persuit to gain WMD and is starting to give them over to the US are these the reason that you so intelegently choose Mr. Kerry !

36. Elaine of Kalilily on 22 Oct 2004

    You don't have to follow my lead, boys. Just follow my links here: http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/22/201702.html

    Did I spell it out simply enough? Can you hear me now?

37. Carla on 23 Oct 2004

    I can't fathom how you cannot see all the hype. John Kerry is incapable of telling the truth. I am a single mother, a Catholic, and a working woman with a heart condition. I also had FIVE cousins in IRAQ so don't talk to me about that. I think that I qualify for all of Kerry's B.S. But I decided to get informed and as soon as I did, I saw right through Kerry. Look, you can play and complain all you want but grow up, smarten up. John Kerry doesn't stand by the troops, his faith as a Catholic, he doesn't even show up to vote for tax breaks that he talks about. If you vote for him you are encouraging the weakness of our country....why is this time different? WE WERE ATTACKED AND WE CAN NOT AFFORD A SPINELESS, GO WITH THE THOUGHT FOR THE MOMENT JERK. Remember it was Kerry that recently offered OIL for money and was TURNED DOWN by FRANCE. WHAT THE HELL CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND OR GET?

38. David Simmons on 23 Oct 2004

    Free speech allows all views to be considered, does it not. Why is there fear in this broadcast. The fear gives me a greater desire to see the documentary. The truth is simply the truth. It amazes me how selective some want to be when it comes to free speech.
    I listen,I watch, I make up my own mind. Thanks for attempting to do it for me.
    W2004

39. chequette on 23 Oct 2004

    Now Mr. Kerry is hoping that Mr. Clinton will promote him well , the Only problem is that Post 9/11 his administartion had the biggest failure , its in the 9/11 commision report

    Its all there for everyone to read .
    Lets start with the first WTC bombing Oklahoma city Bombing , hobart towars , US embassies bombed around the world , USS Cole , The marine barrakc , the army barracks in africa .
    Mr. Clinton did nothing ! as Mr.Kerry would say he didnt keep his eye on the ball!

    The ball he is refering to a terrorist Binladen
    when Mr. Clinton was in office he had well over 4 chances to capture kill and destroy Bin Laden but he chose not to . its in the 9/11 commission report no one can argue these facts !

    Who cares Mr. Clinton is not running for president , your correct but who is he promiting , a person that will make the same Huge mistakes as Clinton did . that my friends are facts !!!!!!

    Did you know that Mr. Clinton was actually planning to go to war against iraq and the UN would not back the US.(9/11 COM REP)

    And Mr. Kerry made a statement about how he was pleased that Mr. Clinton did not seek approval from other countries !!!! WOW

    "Mega Fix" – Emmy-award-winning filmmaker Jack Cashill traces the roots of September 11 to the perfect storm of disinformation that surrounded the Clintons' desperate drive for the White House in the years 1995-1996.

    Cashill leads the viewer from Oklahoma City to Dubrovnik, where Ron Brown's plane crashed, to the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia to the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island to the Olympic Park bombing.

    As Cashill proves beyond dispute in this DVD, these are not multiple conspiracies, but all part of one major political fix, the mother of all fixes – the Mega Fix.

    Clinton-Kerry deceit

    In 1998, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. John Kerry made no public comment about the fate of TWA Flight 800. But after Sept. 11, 2001, he implied to Larry King that the plane's destruction was a terrorist act, a charge he repeated to Chris Matthews two weeks later on "Hardball."

    The Kerry gesture did not surprise writer/ producer/historian Jack Cashill. He had been watching Kerry and the Clintons play deadly games with American security for the last eight years. In his new feature-length production, "Mega Fix," he shows how and why.

    A Ph.D. in American studies from Purdue, Cashill has produced and directed the much-acclaimed "The Holocaust through Our Own Eyes" and the Emmy Award-winning "The Royal Years," among others. When he teamed up with James Sanders three years ago to produce the documentary "Silenced" and the book "First Strike," both on the fate of TWA Flight 800, he began to discern the pattern of political deceit that marked the election cycle of 1995-1996. The research on his new best seller, "Ron Brown's Body," confirmed his suspicions.

    It was not, however, until he collaborated with "The Third Terrorist" author and former Oklahoma City TV reporter Jayna Davis on a series of WorldNetDaily articles about the Oklahoma City bombing that he understood the true depth of the problem and the connection between these seemingly disparate events. "Mega Fix" connects the proverbial dots.

    The thesis of "Mega Fix" is deadly serious: In the aftermath of the November 1994 electoral debacle, the Clintons and their operatives –Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick among others – finessed or fixed all terrorist investigations to enhance Clinton's reelection. This meant denying or downplaying any Islamic connections, particularly to the Ramzi Yousef circle and its known plans to attack American aviation.

    After the Oklahoma City bombing, the White House made the "Middle-Eastern looking" John Doe #2 disappear. With the help of a friendly media, the Clintons then focused all attention on the two "right-wingers," Nichols and McVeigh, and attributed their revolutionary urges to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

    They Suppressed Ron Brown an investigation into his death. They swept the Khobar Towers disaster under the rug. They ignored all Islamic trails to the Olympic Park bombing and hung the innocent Richard Jewell out to dry until the election. And most spectacularly of all, they transformed the shoot-down of TWA Flight 800 into a mechanical failure.

    Tying all of this together, "Mega Fix" is an exquisitely documented, no-nonsense account of the mother of all political fixes.

40. Heidi Collier, MI on 23 Oct 2004

    I love it!!!!! Looks like Mr. Soros and his littles supporters are scared that Bush will be re-elected! Be afraid Georgy, be VERY afraid! Looks like you can dish it out, but judging by your reaction to Stolen Honor..your weak moral character can't take it! This may be news to you, but God answers prayer and the stands that you choose to sit in and support are simply going to fall and crumble because it lacks a solid foundation. If you don't like the leadership that supports the very principles the United States of America was founded on (and the system that you used to create your own wealth)...leave...please. Cheaters NEVER prosper, in the end neither will the issues you support or endorse either.
    For any person or christian agreeing with/supporting this anti-bush garbage...check out CitizenLink and focus on the family's website that tells all about Mr. Soros. This is the last time I'll be visiting this site. I'll pray for your change of heart George...

41. Cpl Steeley on 23 Oct 2004

    You said "What these right wingers are denying are the truths of what actually happened in places like Mi Lai (Vietnam) and Abu Ghraib. – the kind of atrocities that Kerry was trying to expose"

    No, you are dead wrong. Kerry wasn't trying to expose "the truths .. of Mi Lai", those were already exposed and tried in court. What Kerry did was lie, accusing us all of war crimes we did not commit, and planted a big scarlet V on our forheads that we've born for more than 30 years.

    Watch the video, it's linked on the site below.. hear our brothers speak. You may not agree, but perhaps you will understand why we hate this traitor - it would be one thing if what he said was true, but I swear on the bodies of my fallen brothers what Kerry testified to, that turned so many in America against us, were lies.

    Cpl Steeley
    USMC 1971-1975
    http://www.vvak.org

42. chequette on 23 Oct 2004

    What the media doesnt want you to know!!!!!!

    
    Lawmaker Wants French to Answer Bribe Charges
    Saturday, October 23, 2004

    
    NEW YORK — A lawmaker heading one of Congress’ investigations into the U.N. Oil-for-Food program sent a letter to French President Jacques Chirac (search) asking for his full cooperation and insisting French government officials meet with his committee.

    Rep. Joe Barton , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent the letter Friday to highlight some of the findings of a recent report by the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group.

    The report, also known as the Duelfer report (search) after chief author Charles Duelfer, suggested that French businessmen and politicians with close ties to Chirac may have received bribes from Saddam Hussein (search). It also said that that French companies may have sold weapons to Iraq on the eve of the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

    
    “These allegations of bribery and illegal weapons sales are extremely serious, and, if true, cast doubt upon the effectiveness and independence of the United Nations. I very much hope that you will assist this committee in its efforts to shed light on possible abuses of the Oil for Food program,” Barton wrote.

    To read the full text of the letter, scroll to the bottom of this story.

    
    Chirac has thus far remained silent on the role Oil-for-Food (search) case may have played in influencing France’s policy toward Iraq.

    The French have not answered the allegations against them in any detail but the French ambassador to the United States told FOX News last week the French government is not for sale.

    On Thursday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would be shocked if any Security Council nation had effectively sold its vote to Saddam. Also Thursday, the U.N.-authorized independent investigation of Oil-for-Food released the most complete list yet of who did business under Oil-for-Food.

    The accounting by the Independent Inquiry Committee showed that the 248 companies — which span the globe — paid Iraq the equivalent of $64.2 billion for oil, and that the 3,545 companies that exported goods to south and central Iraq received payments totaling the equivalent of $32.9 billion.

    The program was created in late 1996 as a way to get such supplies to the Iraqi people by selling Iraqi oil and ease some of the hardships created by the strict sanctions placed against Saddam following the first Gulf War.

    — FOX News' Jonathan Hunt contributed to this report.

    Letter From Barton to Chirac

    October 22, 2004

    His Excellency Jacques Chirac
    President
    Republic of France
    Palais de l'Elysée
    55 rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré
    75008 Paris

    Dear Mr. President:

    The United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is conducting an investigation into the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program ("the Program"). As you are aware, this Program was designed to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, it appears that the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein exploited the Program and siphoned off billions of dollars for various illicit purchases, including weapons and luxury items. These abuses were largely facilitated by a lack of transparency which prevented the Program from benefiting the oppressed without enriching the oppressor. Given the magnitude of the alleged abuses under the Program, and the resulting harm to the Iraqi people, I am certain that your government is also actively investigating these issues. It is my profound hope that you will consider sharing with this Committee any relevant information that you have obtained to date.

    On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency issued a Comprehensive Report prepared by Charles A. Duelfer, a Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence ("the Report"). One of the Report's most troubling findings is that Saddam's regime engaged in a concerted effort to undermine sanctions by awarding lucrative oil and goods contracts to companies and politicians of several Security Council members, including France. Indeed, the Report notes that "Saddam recognized the important role that France played on the international stage, and in particular in the UNSC [United Nations Security Council]."

    The Report cites compelling documentary and testimonial evidence suggesting that France's policies toward the Program, and Iraq in general, may have been motivated by economic self-interest. According to documents obtained by Mr. Duelfer's team from Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, several French politicians received allocations of Iraqi oil, including Charles Pasqua, France's former Interior Minister, and Jean-Bernard Mérimée, the former French ambassador to the United Nations. Moreover, Iraq's former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz claimed to have personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil allotments, adding that these individuals "understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift UN sanctions, or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council." Finally, recovered Iraqi Intelligence Service ("IIS") documents reveal that Saddam's regime "targeted a number of French individuals that the Iraqi's [sic] thought had close relations to French President Chirac, including, according to the Iraqi assessment, the official spokesperson of President Chirac's re-election campaign, two reported 'counselors' of President Chirac, and two well-known French businessmen." These IIS documents also describe a May 2002 meeting between a representative of Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a French parliamentarian, during which, "The French politician assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC against any American decision to attack Iraq, according to the IIS memo."

    This Committee also has concerns that French companies may have been selling weapons to Iraq during the sanctions period, in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661. According to the Report, Mr. Duelfer and his team found evidence that as early as 1998 French companies received "offers and contracts from Iraq for conventional weapons systems and [engaged in] negotiations for possible WMD-related mobile laboratories." For instance, recovered documents show that the French company Lura supplied a tank carrier to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in late 1998 or 1999 and that a French expert "arrived in Iraq in September 1999 to provide training and offer technical expertise on the carrier." Moreover, by 1999, "French firms displayed a willingness to supply parts for Iraqi conventional military items, mainly related to aircraft." IIS documents reveal that the Deputy General Manager of SOFEMA, a French company, planned to visit Iraq in January 2000 on behalf of a number of French military companies to "seek possible trading between the two countries" concerning Iraqi air defense capabilities. These efforts continued right up until Operation Iraqi Freedom ("OIF"). The Report notes that in late December 2002 Iraq "initiated efforts to acquire replacement parts for the Roland II Surface to air missile system, valves for Iraq's air defense system, and various other high technology items with military and battlefield applications" from the French Thompson Company and that Mr. Duelfer's team "found evidence of coordination on this procurement up until 23 days before OIF."

    These allegations of bribery and illegal weapons sales are extremely serious, and, if true, cast doubt upon the effectiveness and independence of the United Nations. I have no doubt that you are equally concerned about these allegations, and I very much hope that you will assist this Committee in its efforts to shed light on possible abuses of the Program. In this regard, I ask that you make available a representative of your government to discuss these issues at a convenient time and location.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. I will have a senior member of my oversight and investigations staff contact the French Embassy in Washington during the next several days to arrange the meeting.

    Sincerely,

    
    Joe Barton
    Chairman

    cc: The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary
    United States Department of State
    His Excellency Jean-David Levitte,
    Ambassador of France
    The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
    The Honorable Peter Deutsch, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    The Honorable Paul A. Volcker, Chairman
    Independent Inquiry Committee into the
    United Nations Oil-For-Food Program

43. chequette on 23 Oct 2004

    
    CBS and ABC Decry TV Chain for Running
    Kerry Documentary

    The chutzpah of CBS and ABC. On Sunday night, both decried how the Sinclair Broadcast Group has told its owned and operated televisions stations to run a Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. On the CBS Evening News, reporter Kelly Cobiella noted how "Sinclair has given the lion's share of its political contributions to Republican candidates. This year, the company's CEO wrote out the largest personal check allowed by law to President Bush's re-election campaign." ABC anchor Terry Moran stressed how "Democrats decry this move as a political smear and yellow journalism" before Geoff Morrell relayed how "Sinclair's owners have donated $58,000 to re-elect President Bush."

    The stories failed to inform viewers how ABC and CBS have given free air time to the anti-Bush screed from Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 911, or how the corporate chieftains at both networks are Democrats and/or large donors to Democrats, including the Kerry presidential campaign. To say nothing of CBS using forged documents for a prime time hit piece aimed at destroying President Bush's credibility.

    On June 27, before a re-run of a laudatory profile of Michael Moore, CBS's 60 Minutes promoted Fahrenheit 9/11 by airing a nearly minute-long excerpt of one of its most disparaging sequences about President Bush, showing him sitting in the classroom for seven minutes on September 11, 2001.

    A few days earlier, ABC's Good Morning America spent about seven minutes showcasing Fahrenheit 9/11's highlights of how after President Bush was informed a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, he stayed in front of elementary school kids for another seven minutes. "Was valuable time wasted?" asked Charlie Gibson at the top of the June 22 show. Diane Sawyer imparted great meaning to the time passage: "It was seven minutes in the life of a President, seven minutes in the history of the nation, it's seven minutes a lot of people are using as a kind of Rorschach test."

    On the money and party affiliation side for Disney, owner of ABC, and Viacom, owner of CBS: Disney CEO Michael Eisner is a long-time generous donor to Democratic candidates and in March former Senator George Mitchell, the very partisan Senate Majority Leader when Democrats held the body in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was elected Chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company. For more about Mitchell's ascension: www.mediaresearch.org

    As for CBS, the September 21 New York Sun reported: "Viacom's Chairman and chief executive, Sumner Redstone, is a self-described 'liberal Democrat' and a prolific donor to Democratic campaigns. Of the company's 13 board members, eight contribute primarily to Democratic candidates and party committees. Two other members of the board, Joseph Califano and William Cohen, held cabinet posts under Democratic Presidents."

    New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein added: "In the past six years, Mr. Redstone has given $50,000 to Democratic campaigns and party committees, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. He gave the maximum $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign and supported Vice President Gore's 2000 presidential bid as well."

    Despite the efforts of the ABC and CBS reporters to play up the power of Sinclair, its stations have a fraction of the audience of the ABC or CBS networks which reach every home and so a minute or two on CBS or ABC has more impact than a lengthier segment on stations 76 percent of Americans can't watch and most in the remaining 24 percent do not.

    ABC's Geoff Morrell warned that through Sinclair the documentary "could be seen by nearly a quarter of all U.S. households." CBS anchor Mika Brzezinski referred to Sinclair as "the nation's largest television group owners." Cobiella described Sinclair as "a company with the power to reach a quarter of American TV viewers. Sinclair owns 62 local television stations across the country, including affiliates of Fox, ABC, WB, UPN and three CBS stations, in a number of states still up for grabs in the presidential race."

    In fact, as Cobiella alluded to, Sinclair is mainly made up of little-watched WB and UPN affiliates, as well as some stations so small they don't even have any network affiliation, and their few affiliations with ABC and CBS are limited to a few small markets. Their largest CBS affiliate is in Sacramento, the 19th largest market, and their largest ABC affiliate, on channel 30, is in an even smaller market, St. Louis. For a list of Sinclair's owned or operated stations (they manage many stations owned by others): www.sbgi.net

    
    WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Worried, concerned ?
    Where do you get your news from?

    Got FACTS!

44. Paul on 23 Oct 2004

    If you have not watched stolen honor reserve yor comments. Watch it and then decide.

45. Paul on 23 Oct 2004

    If you have not watched stolen honor reserve yor comments. Watch it and then decide.

46. Larry Odom on 24 Oct 2004

    Wow. I wonder how many of our soldiers are experiencing "...heartache over the brutality of their actions, their hearts bleeding, and their minds twisting...". I do know how they feel about people on the home front saying such things about them. I am a Vietnam Vet. I remember how the erosion of troop morale began with our "touchy-feely" civilized friends at home questioning our commitment to winning the conflict. Instead of focusing on the reasons for the war; or seeking alternatives to armed conflict; they chose to make us sound like war criminals. John Kerry and his ilk wanted to end the war because it was being fought by American War Criminals. There were lots of reasons for objecting to the War in Vietnam and there are some ligitimate reasons for objecting to the war in Iraq.

    There are no ligitimate reasons for putting the troops in the middle of this political bickering. Your suggestion that our troops are committing acts of brutality agains the Iraqis is both false and unconscionable.

    When you see death up close and hear the crys of the dying, it breaks your heart and changes you forever. Shame on those of you who would take advantage of those feelings as they exist in our troops returning home. They are vulnerable to the arguments of people who purport to be sympathetic to their feelings and are willing to pervert them into whatever suits their political agenda.

    You are disgusting. Stop abusing our troops and leave them out of your political arguments. They can be proud of the job they are doing. But they won't be proud if you liberals keeping pretending that their feelings are the result of having committed acts of "brutality".

47. Larry Odom on 24 Oct 2004

    You are dismayed and disgusted by the possibility of a real documentary being shown on our television stations in our free speech society. Yet I have not seen nor heard any objection to the showing of the music video encouraging young muslims to be homicide bombers; nor the so-called holy man who explains on Al Jezzera how the husband is justified in beating his wife with a rod (even showing the proper size rods that may be used); no objection to the televising of decapitation of innocents by holy men of peace; nor any aspursions being cast on those who use mosques as military strongholds instead of places of worship. Remember that most of the civilized nations of the world signed on to the Geneva Convention as to how wars would be conducted. It states, explicitly, that when holy places are used for military purposes...they cease to be holy places. That is a choice made by those who go there with guns instead of prayers.

    Not once have I heard any of you liberals challenge the muslim leaders to stand up and be counted. John Kerry has ducked any such confrontation. When asked by Bob Sheifer of Face the Nation to condemn this he said he understood that there were deeply held religious beliefs that were stirred up by our "occupation" forces. Hey Johnny! If you can't condemn that....don't complain when someone televises your history and how it has affected honorable veterans.

    By the way, We have something in our country called the Flag Code. It says, among other things, that the flag shall not be used as decoration. Stop televising yourself with dozens of American flags in the background. Uh...nevermind. I forget the rules don't apply to you.

    Larry Odom
    MSgt, USAF (Ret.)

48. Elaine of Kalilily on 24 Oct 2004

    Bringing in the troops -- by liberals like me -- began with the Republicans bringing in the fact that Kerry returned from Vietnam and testified on behalf of the 1,000 vets standing outside Congress that day. If the GOP didn't make a big deal out of that up front, there would be no need for people like me to bring in the troops (although, I guess, Abu Grahib, as a legitimate parallel to Mi Lai, would probably have made it happen sooner or later.)

    You really need to go to my home page at kalilily.net and read some of the other stuff there. I have no intention of repeating in all in comments here.

49. Elaine of Kalilily on 24 Oct 2004

    And I would be happy to watch Stolen Honor the same way I watched Moore's movie -- buy renting it from Hollywood videos. I couldn't watch Moore's movie on tv because it was considered to be an unfair advantage to the Dems, so I don't want Stolen Honor to be on tv for the same reason.

    And, please note, if you want to continue the discussion here, it will have to be without me, since I continue to post my perspctives in other pieces on www.kalilily.net. I don't have the time, energy, inclination, to repeat them here, although I will continue to keep reading any comments left. I do, after all, have an 88 year old mother to take care of and a two-year old grandson I'm can't wait to go out and visit. On the grand scale of history, it tends to be MOSTLY women who are the life-givers, and MOSTLY men who are the life-takers, isn't it?

    As I said on this post (http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/04/10/23/114701.html):

    There are those Americans who think everything is fine and the past four years have been fine (except for 9/11) and the current president is fine.

    And there are those of us who think we need a drastic change in the direction our democracy is moving, both because of and despite 9/11.

    All of the reasons for believing one or the other fall into one or the other categories.

    I'm voting for change. It's as simple (and as complex) as that.

    And, btw, we liberals take it for granted that the "disgusting things" perpetrated by terrorists and be-headers and other evil-doers in other parts of the world need to be dealt with, and we Americans need to participate in neutralizing their power. We take it for granted, so we don't see the point in arguing that. We agree they need to be dealt with. That's why we got into WWII. But the way Bush did it in Iraq is the wrong way. Finding the right way will not be easy. Bush makes it SOUND easy by his sound bites/bytes. But fighting corruption and repression is very very complex. Bush is not equipped to handle such complexity. He's proved that. Kerry is.

    This is my last comment. You can read my lips at www.kalilily.net as time goes by.

50. chequette on 24 Oct 2004

    You talk about Abu Grahib like if they killed and ravaged everyone , yet you again Fail to mention Beaheadings , You Fail to mention Extremist , You Fail to mention Taliban , You Fail to mention Genocide, you fail to mention Mass Graves , Yet you liberals try to concern yourselves with abuse of prisoners , After the fact.
    In lots of countrys around the world , if you dont feed your family member who is in prison or pay for thier esentials they dont get any ! Yet
    here in the USA any person not wanting to work go and find an ok life in our Prison system

    which they get 3 meals a day a place to sleep regular doctor check ups dental checkups free physc help any book they want the option to work the option to go to school .

    Yet you never stop to think why they are in prison in the first place !

    You cannot even compare Abu Grahib to anything it was nothing all it was , was humiliation for what you ask , Well some persons say information others say HOMELAND SECURITY and INTEL.

    Never the less it was wrong. Neccessary I say yes should it of happend no.

    Now you want to talk Beheadings , you want to talk DEATH

51. chequette on 24 Oct 2004

    The duefur report is the Key here. You say it was the wrong war the Duelfur report says it was the right war at the right time . Thats why your man does not mention that report anymore, he only mentions one thing in that report (NO WMD) , but like I emailed you in your rebuttal YOU NEED TO READ THE REPORT THE ENTIRE REPORT. Not just the Parts that benifits your argument Like Mr. Kerry did but as a whole the report states Have we not removed saddam from power the world would be a differnt place ! That France germany russia and many other countries (OUR ALLIES) where selling military items to Iraq and that he believes the UN security council sold thier vote to saddam he exposes the food for oil program that states( UN SANCTIONS WHERE IN FACT FAILING) in other words NOT WORKING , but dont take my word for it read it for yourself . The report makes john kerrry `s rehotric WRONG WAR WRONG TIME(remember howard dean wrong war) statements dumbfounded, ill informed, and bad for America.
    Thats why this letter was sent to France:

    Letter From Barton to Chirac

    October 22, 2004

    His Excellency Jacques Chirac
    President
    Republic of France
    Palais de l'Elysée
    55 rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré
    75008 Paris

    Dear Mr. President:

    The United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is conducting an investigation into the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program ("the Program"). As you are aware, this Program was designed to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, it appears that the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein exploited the Program and siphoned off billions of dollars for various illicit purchases, including weapons and luxury items. These abuses were largely facilitated by a lack of transparency which prevented the Program from benefiting the oppressed without enriching the oppressor. Given the magnitude of the alleged abuses under the Program, and the resulting harm to the Iraqi people, I am certain that your government is also actively investigating these issues. It is my profound hope that you will consider sharing with this Committee any relevant information that you have obtained to date.

    On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency issued a Comprehensive Report prepared by Charles A. Duelfer, a Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence ("the Report"). One of the Report's most troubling findings is that Saddam's regime engaged in a concerted effort to undermine sanctions by awarding lucrative oil and goods contracts to companies and politicians of several Security Council members, including France. Indeed, the Report notes that "Saddam recognized the important role that France played on the international stage, and in particular in the UNSC [United Nations Security Council]."

    The Report cites compelling documentary and testimonial evidence suggesting that France's policies toward the Program, and Iraq in general, may have been motivated by economic self-interest. According to documents obtained by Mr. Duelfer's team from Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, several French politicians received allocations of Iraqi oil, including Charles Pasqua, France's former Interior Minister, and Jean-Bernard Mérimée, the former French ambassador to the United Nations. Moreover, Iraq's former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz claimed to have personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil allotments, adding that these individuals "understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift UN sanctions, or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council." Finally, recovered Iraqi Intelligence Service ("IIS") documents reveal that Saddam's regime "targeted a number of French individuals that the Iraqi's [sic] thought had close relations to French President Chirac, including, according to the Iraqi assessment, the official spokesperson of President Chirac's re-election campaign, two reported 'counselors' of President Chirac, and two well-known French businessmen." These IIS documents also describe a May 2002 meeting between a representative of Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a French parliamentarian, during which, "The French politician assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC against any American decision to attack Iraq, according to the IIS memo."

    This Committee also has concerns that French companies may have been selling weapons to Iraq during the sanctions period, in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661. According to the Report, Mr. Duelfer and his team found evidence that as early as 1998 French companies received "offers and contracts from Iraq for conventional weapons systems and [engaged in] negotiations for possible WMD-related mobile laboratories." For instance, recovered documents show that the French company Lura supplied a tank carrier to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in late 1998 or 1999 and that a French expert "arrived in Iraq in September 1999 to provide training and offer technical expertise on the carrier." Moreover, by 1999, "French firms displayed a willingness to supply parts for Iraqi conventional military items, mainly related to aircraft." IIS documents reveal that the Deputy General Manager of SOFEMA, a French company, planned to visit Iraq in January 2000 on behalf of a number of French military companies to "seek possible trading between the two countries" concerning Iraqi air defense capabilities. These efforts continued right up until Operation Iraqi Freedom ("OIF"). The Report notes that in late December 2002 Iraq "initiated efforts to acquire replacement parts for the Roland II Surface to air missile system, valves for Iraq's air defense system, and various other high technology items with military and battlefield applications" from the French Thompson Company and that Mr. Duelfer's team "found evidence of coordination on this procurement up until 23 days before OIF."

    These allegations of bribery and illegal weapons sales are extremely serious, and, if true, cast doubt upon the effectiveness and independence of the United Nations. I have no doubt that you are equally concerned about these allegations, and I very much hope that you will assist this Committee in its efforts to shed light on possible abuses of the Program. In this regard, I ask that you make available a representative of your government to discuss these issues at a convenient time and location.

    Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. I will have a senior member of my oversight and investigations staff contact the French Embassy in Washington during the next several days to arrange the meeting.

    Sincerely,

    
    Joe Barton
    Chairman

    cc: The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary
    United States Department of State
    His Excellency Jean-David Levitte,
    Ambassador of France
    The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
    The Honorable Peter Deutsch, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    The Honorable Paul A. Volcker, Chairman
    Independent Inquiry Committee into the
    United Nations Oil-For-Food Program

52. Johnny on 25 Oct 2004

    John Kerry has done what I had thought impossible. He has convinced me to vote for George Bush.

53. chequette on 25 Oct 2004

    Use of Force-Passage

    Bill Number: H.J.RES.114
    Issue: Military Issues
    Date: 10/10/2002
    Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL
    

    Roll Call Number: 237
    Bill passed
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

    Vote to pass a joint resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq.

    H.J.RES.114 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

    Vote to pass a joint resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress
    (Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL)

    Note: Oct. 11, 2002, in the session that began and the Congressional Record that is dated Oct. 10, 2002.
    Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1 on 10/11/02.
    Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL

    Bill Number: HJ Res 114-107th Congress (2001-2002)
    House Passage Vote:10/10/2002-Outcome:Passed
    Senate Passage Vote:10/11/2002-Outcome:Passed
    Presidential Action: Signed on 10/16/2002

54. chequette on 25 Oct 2004

    
    Key Vote

    FY 2001 Defense Authorization-Nuclear Weapons Systems

    Bill Number: S 2549
    Issue: Military Issues
    Date: 06/07/2000
    Sponsor: Amendment sponsored by Warner, R-VA; Underlying amendment sponsored Kerrey, D-NE; Bill sponsored by Warner, R-VA
    

    Roll Call Number: 0119
    Amendment adopted
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote on an amendment that would allow the president to make further arms reductions only after the Defense Department submits its quadrenniel defense review and an overall report on the status of the U.S. nuclear arsenal scheduled to be completed in December, 2001.

    S 2549: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

    Vote on an amendment that would allow the president to make further arms reductions only after the Defense Department submits its quadrenniel defense review and an overall report on the status of the U.S. nuclear arsenal scheduled to be completed in December, 2001. The measure replaced language in an underlying amendment that would have waived a provision of the fiscal 1998 defense authorization law that would have given the President the authority to dismantle nuclear weapons below the 6,000 warhead level set in the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START I] with Russia.
    (Amendment sponsored by Warner, R-VA; Underlying amendment sponsored Kerrey, D-NE; Bill sponsored by Warner, R-VA)
    Amendment adopted 51-47: R 50-3; D 1-44 on 06/07/2000.

55. chequette on 25 Oct 2004

    Terminate Space Station

    Bill Number: HR 2099
    Issue: Technology and Communication
    Date: 09/26/1995
    Sponsor: Bumpers, D-AR
    

    Roll Call Number: 0463
    Rejected
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

    Amendment to terminate the space station.

    HR 2099: Fiscal 1996 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations

    Vote on an amendment to terminate the space station program.
    Amendment introduced by Bumpers, D-AR.
    (Rejected 35-64 on 9/26/95)

    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: HR 2099 - 104th Congress (1995-96)
    House Passage Vote: 07/31/95 - Outcome: Passed
    Senate Passage Vote: 09/27/95 - Outcome: Passed
    House Conference Report Vote: 12/07/95 - Outcome: Passed
    Senate Conference Report Vote: 12/14/95 - Outcome: Passed
    Presidential Action: Vetoed on 12/18/95
    No further action was taken on this bill, never became law.
    

    
    Fetal Tissue Research

    Bill Number: HR 2507
    Issue: Abortion Issues
    Date: 03/31/1992
    Sponsor: Hatch, R-UT
    

    Roll Call Number: 0061
    Rejected
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Only allow fetal tissue transplant research with tissue from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies.

    HR 2507 (National Institutes of Health Reauthorization);
    Amendment
    3/31/92

    Outcome: Rejected 23-77

    Congressional Quarterly Number: 1992 - S61

    Amendment introduced by Hatch, R-UT.

    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: HR 2507 - 102nd Congress (1991-92)
    House Passage Vote: 07/25/91 - Outcome: Passed
    Senate Passage Vote: 04/02/92 - Outcome: Passed
    House Conference Report Vote: 05/28/92 - Outcome: Passed
    Senate Conference Report Vote: 06/04/92 - Outcome: Passed
    Presidential Action: Vetoed on 06/23/92
    House Override Vote: 06/24/92 - Outcome: Failed
    No further action was taken on this bill, never became law

56. chequette on 25 Oct 2004

    Prescription Drug Benefit - Adoption

    Bill Number: HR 1
    Issue: Senior and Social Security Issues
    Date: 11/25/2003
    Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL
    

    Roll Call Number: 459
    Conference Report Adopted
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

    Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.

    HR 1 Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003

    Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Starting in 2006, prescription coverage would be made available through private insurers to seniors. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of an estimated $35 in 2006. Individuals enrolled in the plan would cover the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves, and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2, 250. Benefits would stop until personal drug costs exceeded $3, 600. After this point a beneficiary would cover 5 percent of all costs. Low-income seniors would qualifie for discounts on deductibles, premiums and co-payments. The government would offer a fallback prescription drug plan in regions were no private plans had made a bid. In both 2004 and 2005, beneficiaries would have a drug discount card to use in order to reduce prices by up to 25 percent. Over a 10 year time period medicare payemetns to managed care planes would increase by $14.2 billion. A pilot project would begin in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for doctors and hospitals costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. The importation of drugs from Canada would be approved only if the Health and Human Services Department determines there is no safety risks and that consumers would be saving money. Starting in 2007, Part B premiums would increase for certain higher-income recipients. Health care accounts, which would pay for health care services not covered by an individuals insurances could be set up by certain individuals under 65 years of age, as well as Mediciare recipients.

    (Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL)
    Conference Report Adopted 54-44: R 42-9; D 11-35; I 1-0 on 11/25/2003.

    
    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: HR 1 - 108th Congress (2003-2004)
    House Passage Vote: 06/27/2003- Outcome: Passed
    Senate Passage:07/07/2003 -Outcome: Passed
    House Conference Report Vote: 11/22/2003-Outcome:Passed
    Senate Conference Report Vote:11/25/2003-Outcome:Passed
    Presidential Action: Signed on 12/08/2003

57. chequette on 25 Oct 2004

    Key Vote

    2002 Budget Resolution-Prescription Drug Benefit

    Bill Number: H Con Res 83
    Issue: Senior and Social Security Issues
    Date: 04/03/2001
    Sponsor: Amendment sponsored by Grassley, R-IA; Bill sponsored by Nussle, R-IA
    

    Roll Call Number: 0065
    Amendment adopted
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011.

    H Con Res 83

    Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011. The money would come from the budget's contingency fund. The amendment would also require a Medicare overhaul.
    (Amendment sponsored by Grassley, R-IA; Bill sponsored by Nussle, R-IA)
    Amendment adopted with Vice President Cheney casting a "yea" vote, 50-50: R 49-1; D 1-49 with Vice President Cheney casting a yea vote on 04/03/2001.

    Bill Number: H Con Res 83-107th Congress (2001-2002)
    House Passage Vote:03/28/2001-Outcome:Passed
    Senate Passage Vote:04/06/2001-Outcome:Passed
    House Conference Report Vote: 05/09/2001-Outcome:Passed
    Senate Conference Report Vote: 05/10/2001-Outcome:Passed

58. chequette on 26 Oct 2004

    Key Vote

    Minimum Wage Increase-Three Years

    Bill Number: S 625
    Issue: Labor
    Date: 11/09/1999
    Sponsor: Amendment sponsored by Domenici, R-NM, Bill sponsored by Grassley, R-IA
    

    Roll Call Number: 0357
    Amendment passed
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote to raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour over three years, beginning on March 1, 2000.

    S 625: A Bill to Revise U.S. Bankruptcy Laws

    Vote to raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour over three years. The amendment would increase the minimum wage to $5.50 on March 1, 2000, $5.85 an hour on March 1, 2001 and $6.15 on March 1, 2002. In addition, the amendment would mandate $18.4 billion in tax cuts over a five-year period.
    Amendment sponsored by Domenici, R-NM, Bill sponsored by Grassley, R-IA
    (Amendment passed 54-44: R 53-1; D 1-43 on 11/09/99)

    Bill Status: (As of 12/08/1999)
    Bill Number: S 625 - 106th Congress (1999-2000)
    No passage votes taken on this bill.

59. chequette on 26 Oct 2004

    Say it aint so john!

    
    Key Vote

    Defense Contracts

    Bill Number: S 1894
    Issue: Defense
    Date: 07/17/1996
    Sponsor: Stevens, R-AK, motion to table Simon, D-IL, amendment.
    

    Roll Call Number: 0194
    Tabling motion adopted
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote to table an amendment to require that all work done under Defense Department contracts be performed in the U.S.

    S 1894: Fiscal 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations

    Vote on a motion to table an amendment requiring that all work done under Department of Defense contracts must be performed in the United States.
    Stevens, R-AK, motion to table Simon, D-IL, amendment.
    (Tabling motion adopted 69-29 on 7/17/96)

    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: S 1894 - 104th Congress (1995-96)
    No passage votes were taken on this bill, never became law. HR 3610 passed instead.

    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: HR 3610 - 104th Congress (1995-96)
    House Passage Vote: 06/13/96 - Outcome: Passed
    Senate Passage Vote: 07/18/96 - Outcome: Passed
    House Conference Report Vote: 09/28/96 - Outcome: Passed
    Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/30/96 - Outcome: Passed by Voice Vote
    Presidential Action: Signed on 09/30/96
    Public Law Number: 104-208 110 Stat. 3009

60. chequette on 26 Oct 2004

    
    Key Vote

    Gulf War Authorization - Passage

    Bill Number: S Joint Res 2
    Issue: Foreign Aid and Policy Issues
    Date: 01/12/1991
    Sponsor: Joint Resolution introduced by Warner, R-VA
    

    Roll Call Number: 0002
    The resolution passed
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote on the passage of a joint resolution to permit military force in Iraq under specific Congressional instructions.

    S Joint Res 2: Use of Force against Iraq

    Vote on the passage of a joint resolution to permit military force in Iraq if Iraq does not withdraw from Kuwait and comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions by Jan. 15. The resolution authorizes the use of force and expending funds under the War Powers Act and requires the president to file a report with Congress every 60 days on the efforts to force Iraq to comply with U.N. Resolutions.
    Joint Resolution introduced by Warner, R-VA
    (Resolution passed 52-47 on 1/12/91)

    
    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: S Joint Res 2 - Congress (1991-92)
    Senate Passage Vote: 01/12/91 - Outcome: Passed
    No further action was taken on this bill, never became law.

61. chequette on 26 Oct 2004

    WAR criminal then john?

    Key Vote

    Prosecution of Saddam Hussein as War Criminal

    Bill Number: S Con Res 78
    Issue: Foreign Aid and Policy Issues
    Date: 03/13/1998
    Sponsor: Resolution introduced by Specter, R-PA.
    

    Roll Call Number: 0032
    Resolution passed; concurrent resolutions do not have the force of law
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

    Vote to pass a resolution calling on the United Nations to create a criminal tribunal to prosecute Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity, genocide and other violations of international law.

    S Con Res 78: Resolution Calling for Prosecution of Saddam Hussein as War Criminal

    Vote to pass a resolution calling on the United Nations to create a criminal tribunal to indict, prosecute, and imprison Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials for crimes against humanity, genocide and other violations of international law.
    Resolution introduced by Specter, R-PA.
    (Resolution passed 93-0 on 3/13/98; concurrent resolutions do not have the force of law)

    Bill Status:
    Bill Number: S Con Res 78 - 105th Congress (1997-98)
    Senate Passage Vote: 03/13/98 - Outcome: Passed
    Bill referred to House International Relations committee on 03/16/98
    No further action was taken on this bill. Concurrent Resolutions do not become law.

62. chequette on 26 Oct 2004

    Key Vote

    U.N. Recognition of U.S. Taxpayers' Support

    Bill Number: S 1768
    Issue: Foreign Aid and Policy Issues
    Date: 03/25/1998
    Sponsor: Amendment introduced by Helms, R-NC; original bill introduced by Stevens, R-AK.
    

    Roll Call Number: 0043
    Amendment passed
    Full Member List
    

    Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

    Vote on an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that U.S. taxpayers should be commended for their support of maintaining international peace and security and the United Nations should publicly acknowledge the financial and military support of the U.S. in maintaining international peace and security. The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that the Unite