Jehl Break

When It Comes to Charles Duelfer, The New York Times' Motto is "All the News We See Fit to Print"
by Matthew Continetti
10/06/2004 7:40:00 PM

WALTER PINCUS, the veteran Washington Post reporter, is by no means an ally of George W. Bush. In fact, it's safe to say that, over the last few years, in his reportage on intelligence issues and in public appearances, he's done more than any other national security reporter to scrutinize the Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities. And so it was odd, to say the least, to visit WashingtonPost.com on Wednesday afternoon, click on Pincus's write-up of the Iraq Survey Group's final report on Iraqi WMD, and read, well . . . a remarkably nuanced and evenhanded presentation of the ISG's findings.

One can't say the same thing about New York Times national security reporter Douglas Jehl. If you had visited Nytimes.com yesterday afternoon, maybe after reading Pincus's article, you would have read a completely different interpretation of the ISG report. "Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003," writes Jehl. What's more, Jehl continues, the report

adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq--that it possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program--bore no resemblance to the truth.

But what resemblance does Jehl's article have to Pincus's, or, for that matter, the ISG's report? Not much. For example, nowhere in his piece does Jehl report that "the former Iraqi dictator had intentions to restart his program." Pincus does.

Nowhere does Jehl report that Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group,

said a threat remains that chemical weapons could be used against U.S. and coalition forces, noting information from earlier this year that Iraqi scientists had linked up with foreign terrorists in Iraq. A series of raids beginning last March, Duelfer said, prevented the problem from 'becoming a major threat.'

Pincus does.

And nowhere does Jehl write that "Hussein's government retained data and personnel knowledgeable about weapons, and used funds from the Oil for Food relief program to upgrade his chemical industry so that weapons materials could be produced once sanctions ended." Pincus does.

HERE'S A QUESTION: Does Jehl report that "the former Iraqi leader tried to keep knowledgeable scientists together" so that he'd be prepared for the day when the sanctions regime against him fell, as Pincus reports?

Actually, in this case, the answer is yes: "Mr. Duelfer said in the report that Iraq had made a conscious effort to maintain the knowledge base necessary to restart an illicit weapons program," Jehl writes. But that's it. Turn once again to Pincus, and you discover that Duelfer believes "reconstitution" of Saddam's bioweapons program "'could be accomplished quite quickly'" because the dictator still retained his top scientists.

"Quite quickly" must mean something different to Douglas Jehl, because he says Duelfer concluded

that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

You'll notice that Jehl doesn't include biological weapons in that list. Why? Because, he reports a little later, Iraq "could have begun to produce biological [weapons] in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons programs in 2003."

What does Duelfer say? He told Pincus that both "the 'CW [chemical warheads] and BW [biological warheads] put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.'"

Now it should be said that there's one thing Jehl reports which isn't in Pincus's piece. According to Jehl, Charles Duelfer

said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties.

Which seems like the sort of thing that would lead one to believe Saddam Hussein "had intentions to restart" his weapons program--as Pincus reports, but Jehl does not.

Wouldn't it?

Matthew Continetti is a reporter at The Weekly Standard.

The Subject About Which Kerry Dare Not Ever Speak

No, it's not gay marriage or tax hikes, it is the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program because it is that scandal at the heart of our most prominent international institution, more than anything I can think of, that makes Kerry's continuing mantra of "consulting with our allies" into a complete and utter farce. Even what we know of Oil-for-Food right now... and there's undoubtedly a lot more to come... shows us that these same allies - notably the French, Russians and to a lesser extent the Germans - were, throughout the run-up to the War in Iraq, nothing but profiteers off Saddam. They were and to a great extent still are, as Orwell put it in an only slightly different context, "objectively pro-fascist."

So when I read Kerry's latest apologia pro vita pin-striped suit in which the Senator tries to set the record straight on what he means or meant by a "Global Test," all I could think of was has this man who claims to be a liberal, to be an enemy of fascism, ever read anything about Oil-for-Food, ever investigated it? What does he know about it? Back on March 12, the Washington Times, a paper he no doubt despises, began a two-part series on Oil-for-Food this way, trying to call the Senator's attention to the subject:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.

More recent analyses have even connected the Oil-for-Food money to Al Qaeda via a Kuwaiti company, which means the UN itself may actually have been financing terrorism. What do you have to say to that, Senator Kerry? Which side are you on - the liberal or the totalitarian?

The tragic part of all this is such a small percentage of the American public knows about Oil-for-Food, although it may have more to tell us about the international balance of power than any other current scandal. Many liberal friends of mine are completely ignorant of these events because they have been relegated, for the most part, to the back pages of The New York Times, therefore invisible. And Paul Volcker's internal UN investigation has had the paradoxical result of pushing the scandal even further from view, its conclusions hidden from the public until long after the coming election. Even Kerry would have been forced to comment about that. And don't look for the press to ask him about it? Those few who might be interested won't have the chance.

Iconoclast Support, Or Just Plain Foolish?

By DIANA WEST
October 6, 2004

George W. Bush's hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry for president. This peep of editorial sound and fury prompted numerous yeeha-folksy features from the campaign trail - "They Don't Call It the 'Iconoclast' for Nothin'" a New York Times article wrote - but it signifies not much.

Or does it? The Iconoclast is not the first newspaper to tout Kerry. According to the Jerusalem Post, an Aug. 4 editorial in the Syria Times exhorted Arab-Americans not to make the same mistake they made in 2000 by throwing their support in 2004 to George W. Bush. This time around, declared the state-run organ of Bashar Assad's Baathist dictatorship, a vote for John Kerry would be "a wise one." And from the nuke-mad mullah-ocracy in terror-central Iran comes the Good Hezbollah seal of approval: "Kerry," the Tehran Times declared this summer, "is exactly what the U.S. needs right now."

This is not to say that an endorsement from the Tehran Times is exactly what Kerry needs right now. Nor do I mean to imply that The Lone Star Iconoclast is anything but, well, iconoclastic. At the same time, it's a mistake to ignore what can only be described as a surge for Kerry in axis-of-evil and just-plain-evil nations. Indeed, one of the weirder outposts of Kerry support is in North Korea. There, Radio Pyongyang, the radio network of the Stalinist state, was actually broadcasting Kerry's campaign speeches earlier this year, and reporting them, as the Financial Times put it, in "glowing" terms. As for Bush, Pyongyang's "diplomatic spokesman" recently called the president "an idiot, an ignorant, a tyrant, and a man-killer" - and, on top of everything else, a "bad guy." As Kenneth Quinones, a former U.S. diplomat who recently visited Pyongyang, told The New York Times, "The North Koreans made it very clear, politely, that they want Mr. Kerry to win." Politely?

Kerry supporters ignore the implications - that America's enemies would unanimously vote their candidate into the Oval Office over George W. Bush. Indeed, they suppress the implications. The New York Times recently and hotly editorialized that "it is absolutely not all right" to take that logical next step and "suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists." In some basic way, though, foreign policy comes down to a tally of friends and enemies. Very simply put, Kerry doesn't care enough about our friends - stalwarts such as Britain and Australia and Italy and Poland and South Korea and free Iraq - and he is uncomfortably well-liked by our enemies. Even ones who nurture and abet the jihadist networks that want us dead.

Why? Maybe because he's the kind of man who would refer to granddaddy-terror-kingpin Yasir Arafat, as he did in a 1997 book, as a "statesman." Or defend Moqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice in Iraq," as he did in April after coalition forces shut down the terror leader's newspaper when it urged violence against U.S. troops. ("Well, let me ... change that term legitimate," he quickly amended himself during an interview with National Public Radio. The newspaper "belongs to a voice.") Or call for a "more sensitive" war on terror, as he did this summer. Or promise a "grand bargain" with Iran, as he did last month, offering to allow the rogue-state to retain its nuclear power plants in exchange for its promise not to make WMD. Or plan to exit Iraq - a "distraction" from the war on Islamic terror, he absurdly insists - ASAP.

The Kerry Doctrine would begin not with a bang, but with an apology. "In the first hundred days in office," Kerry vowed last winter, "I will go to the United Nations - I will go in the first weeks - and I will travel to our traditional allies" -- guess who - "to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations." Such a mea-culpish jaunt, more appropriate for a Libya, or a Cuba someday, might not make the flag wave, but it's sure to make jihadis smile.

Former New York mayor Ed Koch explained it this way: "Just as I and millions of Americans believe Kerry and Bush differ in their approaches to international terrorism," he wrote this week, "you can be certain that bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and other Islamic terrorists recognize these differences. Surely they know which presidential candidate would be more likely to wage war against them and the countries that harbor them, with or without United Nations support, and pursue them until they are defeated." Koch, a liberal Democrat, is voting for Bush.

As will anyone else serious about victory.

Diana West is a columnist for The Washington Times.
She can be contacted via dianawest@verizon.net.
Copyright 2004, Newspaper Enterprise Assn.

Ah, yes. The impartial and unbiased media. This is sickening.

Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally

Oakland Community College-Orchard Ridge Campus
Farmington Hills, Michigan

3:22 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) You know what I think, Bill -- I think that with the help of these good folks here, we'll carry Michigan; we'll win a great victory in November. And I'll be there in the White House when you come back. (Applause.)

I appreciate you coming. Thanks for coming today. We're coming down the stretch. I'm here to ask for your vote, and I'm here to ask for your help. (Applause.) When you register your friends and neighbors, make sure you don't overlook discerning Democrats, people like Zell Miller. (Applause.) Get people headed to the polls, and remind them, if they want a safer America, a stronger America, and a better America, to put me and Dick Cheney back in office. (Applause.)

Speaking about the Vice President, I'm sure some of you stayed up to watch the debate last night. (Applause.) America saw two different visions of our country, and two different hair styles. (Laughter.) America saw why I picked Dick Cheney to be the Vice President. He's strong, he's steady, he knows what he's talking about. (Applause.)

Laura sends her best. (Applause.) She's warming up for the Jay Leno show. He's lucky to have her as a guest, and I'm lucky to have her as a wife. (Applause.) She is a great First Lady. Perhaps the most important reason to put me back into office, so that Laura will be the First Lady for four more years. (Applause.)

I appreciate Bill Laimbeer for being here. I also want to thank another great leader and sports figure of your great state, Bo Schembechler is with us today, as well. (Applause.) I appreciate you bringing Cathryn. I also want to thank the Attorney General, Mike Cox. (Applause.) Longtime friend, Brooks Patterson is with us today. (Applause.) I thank Ruth Johnson and other state and local officials. I want to thank Betsy DeVos, and all the grassroots activists who are here. I appreciate what you're doing. (Applause.) I appreciate the hard work you're doing. (Applause.)

I want to thank Mary Spangler, the Chancellor of the Oakland Community College; and Ed Callaghan, who's the President. Thank you all for having me. I want to thank my friend, Mark Wills, country/western singer, for being here. (Applause.) Most of all, thank you all for being here. (Applause.)

In less than a month you'll have a chance to vote for Dick Cheney and me. As your President, I've worked to make America more hopeful and more secure. I've led our country with principle and resolve, and that is how I'll lead our nation for four more years. (Applause.)

When I took office in 2001, the bubble of the '90s had burst and our economy was headed into a recession. Because of the attacks of September the 11th, nearly a million jobs were lost in three months. It was a dangerous time for our economy. People were warning of potential deflation and depression. And I led. To stimulate the economy, I called on Congress to pass historic tax relief -- which it did. (Applause.) The tax relief was the fuel that got our economy growing again. Thanks to the efforts of our citizens and the right policies at the right place at the right time, we put the recession behind us, and America is creating jobs again. (Applause.)

We have built a broad and solid record of accomplishment. In the past year, the United States of America has added about 1.7 million new jobs -- more than Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Canada and France combined. (Applause.) Real tax -- real after-tax income, the money in your pocket you have to spend on groceries and house payments and rent, is up more than 10 percent since I took office. Home ownership is at an all-time high in America. (Applause.) The farm economy is strong. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well. The small business sector of America is doing well. (Applause.)

Thanks to our reforms in education, math and reading scores are increasing in our public schools. Under my budget, 10 million students will get record levels of grants and loans to help with college. (Applause.) Low-income seniors are getting $600 extra to help pay for medicine this year, and soon Medicare will offer prescription drug coverage to every senior in America. (Applause.) We've made America stronger, and we're just getting started. (Applause.)

Listen, I understand we're living in changing times -- people are living and working in a time of change. Workers switch jobs more often than they used to, which means they need -- oftentimes, need new schools and new benefits that they can take with them from job to job. Ultimately, in our competitive global economy, it's our people that make America successful. And that's why I believe education is so vital. (Applause.)

So we'll raise standards and expectations for every public school in America. We'll invest in our nation's fine community colleges, like this one right here, so they prepare workers for the jobs of the 21st century. We'll expand health savings accounts so people can pay health expenses with tax-free money. We'll improve Social Security to allow younger workers to own a piece of their retirement, a nest egg that Washington, D.C. politicians can never take away. (Applause.)

To keep our economy strong and competitive, we must make sure America is the best place in the world to do business. (Applause.) That's why we need to make our tax relief permanent for our small businesses and our families. (Applause.) To keep jobs here, we need to cut needless regulations. To keep jobs here, we need to pass an energy plan that makes our nation less dependent on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.) To make sure we got jobs here, we need to stop these junk and frivolous lawsuits that badger our employers. (Applause.)

My opponent and I have a very different view as how to grow our economy. We have a difference of opinion. Let's start with taxes. I have a record of reducing them. He has a record of raising them.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: He voted in the United States Senate to raise taxes 98 times.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: That sounds like a lot to me. He voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: He voted in 1997 for the formula that has helped cause the increases in Medicare premiums.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: And when I proposed middle class tax relief in order to get this economy going, I asked Congress to raise the child credit, reduce the marriage penalty and create a new 10 percent bracket for lower-income Americans -- he voted against every one of those taxes to help the middle class.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Now he's proposing higher taxes -- higher taxes on about 900,000 small business owners.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: When you hear him say, tax the rich, a lot of small businesses pay individual income taxes. As a matter of fact, 90 percent of small businesses do. And we've heard that rhetoric, haven't we, tax the rich? That's why the rich hire lawyers and accountants, to stick you with the bill, to stick those small business owners with the bill. We're not going to let him tax you. We're going to win Michigan and win in November. (Applause.)

My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes. That's the kind of pledge a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps. (Laughter.)

We have a different view on another threat to our economy: frivolous lawsuits. Senator Kerry has been a part of the Washington crowd that has obstructed legal reform again and again. Meanwhile, all across America, unfair lawsuits are hurting small businesses. Lawsuits are driving up the cost of your health care. Lawsuits are driving good doctors out of the practice of medicine. We need a President who will stand up to the trial lawyers in Washington, not put one on the ticket. (Applause.)

The Senator and I have very different views on health care. I believe we ought to help the poor with community health centers. We ought to fully subscribe to the children's health program for low-income families. We need association health plans to help our small businesses afford insurance. We need health savings accounts to help our workers and small businesses be able to better afford insurance. We need to make sure we use technology to help drive down the cost of medicine. He has a different view. Under his health plan, 8 million Americans would lose the private insurance they get at work, and most would end up on a government program. Under his plan, 8 out of 10 people who get new insurance will get it from the federal government. My opponent's proposal would be the largest expansion of government-run health care ever. And when government pays the bills, government makes the rules. His plan would put bureaucrats in charge of dictating coverage, which could ration your care and limit your choice of doctors. My opponent's plan would put us on the path to "Hillary-care."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: In everything we do to reform health care, we will make sure the decisions are made by patients and doctors, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

My opponent and I have different views on spending -- spending your money. Over the years he's voted 274 times to break federal budget limits. In this campaign he's announced more than $2 trillion in new spending. And that's a lot of money, even for somebody from Massachusetts. (Applause.)

During his 20 years as a senator, my opponent hasn't had many accomplishments. Of the hundreds of bills he submitted, only five became law. One of them was ceremonial. But to be fair, he's earned a special distinction in Congress. The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: And when the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something. Listen, it wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. You might even say it was hard work. (Laughter.) But he earned that title. He earned it by voting for higher taxes, more regulation, more junk lawsuits, and more government control over your life.

And that sets up one of the real differences in this campaign. My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal; I'm a compassionate conservative. (Applause.) My opponent wants to empower government; I want to use government to empower citizens. (Applause.) My opponent seems to think all the wisdom is found in Washington, D.C.; I trust the wisdom of the American people. (Applause.)

Our differences are also clear on issues of national security. When I took office in 2001, the threats to America had been gathering for years. And on one terrible morning, terrorists took more lives than America lost at Pearl Harbor. Since that day we've waged a global campaign to protect the American people and bring our enemies to account. Our government has trained over half a million first responders and tripled spending on homeland security. Law enforcement and intelligence have better tools to stop terrorists, thanks to the Patriot Act, that Senator Kerry voted for, but now wants to weaken. The Taliban regime that sheltered al Qaeda is gone from power, and the people of Afghanistan will vote in free elections this coming Saturday. (Applause.)

A black market network that provided weapons materials to North Korea and Libya and Iran is now out of business. (Applause.) Libya, itself, has given up its weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are joining the fight against the terrorists. And more than three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been brought to justice. (Applause.)

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at everyplace terrorists might get those weapons.

One regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America, and was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terror. There was a risk Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorists networks. In a world after September the 11th that was a risk we could not afford to take. (Applause.)

After 12 years -- after 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions, we gave him a final chance to come clean and prove his disarmament. He chose defiance. And when he did, he chose war. Our coalitions enforced the just demands of the free world, and the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein in a prison cell. (Applause.)

We have had -- we have had many victories in the war on terror. And that war goes on. Our nation is safer, but not yet safe. To win this war we must fight on every front. We will stay on the offensive against terrorist networks. We will strike them overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) We will confront governments that support terrorists and could arm them, because they're equally guilty of terrorist murder.

And our long-term victory requires confronting the ideology of hate with freedom and hope. Our long-term victory requires we must change the conditions that produce radicalism and suicide bombers. Our long-term security depends upon finding new democratic allies in a troubled region of the world.

America is always more secure when freedom is on the march. (Applause.) And freedom is on the march -- in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. There will be good days and there will be bad days in the war on terror. But every day we will show our resolve and do our duty to future generations of Americans. (Applause.) This nation is determined. We will stay in the fight until the fight is won. (Applause.)

My opponent agrees with all this -- except when he doesn't. (Laughter.) Last week in --

AUDIENCE: Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

THE PRESIDENT: Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. (Laughter.) He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that America had no business removing that threat. Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake; he also called the liberation of Iraq a colossal error.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: He said we need to do more to train Iraqis. But also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting so he wants -- so he can invite other countries to join what he calls the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror. If you hear all that you can understand why somebody would make a face. (Laughter and applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: My opponent -- my opponent's endless back-and-forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous. Senator Kerry approaches the world with a September the 10th mind-set. He declared in his convention speech that any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. This was a mind-set of the 1990s, while al Qaeda was planning attacks on America. After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

THE PRESIDENT: In our debate -- in our debate, Senator Kerry said that removing Saddam was a mistake because the threat was not imminent. The problem with this approach is obvious: If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives. Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they launch an attack on our country. I refuse to stand by while dangers gather. (Applause.)

My opponent has also announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that American actions in the war on terror must pass a global test.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Under this test, America would not be able to act quickly against threats because we'd be sitting around waiting for our grade from other nations. I have a different view. America will always work with our allies for security and peace, but the President's job is not to pass a global test, the President's job is to protect the American people. (Applause.)

When my opponent first ran for Congress, he argued that American troops should be deployed only at the directive of the United Nations.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Look, he has changed his mind, but it is a window into his thinking. Over the years, Senator Kerry has looked for every excuse to restrain America's actions in the world. He says he praises America's broad coalition in the Persian Gulf War, but in 1991, he criticized those coalition members as -- quote -- "shallow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Sounds familiar. That time, he voted against the war. If that coalition didn't pass his global test, clearly nothing will. His mind-set would paralyze America in a dangerous world. I will never hand over America's national security decisions to foreign leaders or international bodies. (Applause.)

The Kerry doctrine has other consequences, especially for our men and women in uniform. The Senator from Massachusetts supports the International Criminal Court --

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: -- which would allow unaccountable foreign prosecutors and judges to put American soldiers on trial.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: And that would be a legal nightmare for our troops. My fellow citizens, as long as I'm your President, Americans in uniform will answer to the officers and laws of the United States, not to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. (Applause.)

The Senator speaks often about his plan to strengthen America's alliances, but he's got an odd way of going about it. In the middle of the war he's chosen to insult America's fighting allies by calling them "window dressing" and a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." The Italians who died in Nasiriyah were not window dressing. They were heroes in the war on terror. (Applause.) The British and Poles at the head of multinational divisions in Iraq were not coerced or bribed. They have fought, and some have died, in the cause of freedom. (Applause.) These good allies and dozens of others deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. (Applause.)

Instead, the Senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own. This is my opponent's alliance-building strategy -- brush off your best friend, fawn over your critics. That's no way to gain respect in this world. (Applause.)

My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it sound pretty familiar. It's already known as the Bush plan. (Applause.) Senator Kerry suggests we train Iraqi troops. That's what we've been doing for months. Senator Kerry is proposing that Iraq have elections. Those elections are scheduled for January. (Applause.) He wants the U.N. to be involved in those elections. The U.N. is already there. There's one new element of Senator Kerry's plan; he talked about artificial timetables to pull the troops out of Iraq. He has send the signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job isn't done. That may satisfy his political needs, but it complicates the essential work we're doing in Iraq.

The Iraqi people need to know that America will not cut and run with their freedom at stake. (Applause.) Our soldiers and Marines need to know that America will honor their service and sacrifice by completing the mission. (Applause.) Our enemies in Iraq need to know that they can never outlast the will of America. (Applause.) Senator Kerry assures us that he's the one to win a war he calls a mistake, or an error, and a diversion. But you can't win a war you don't believe in fighting. (Applause.) On Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy for victory. (Applause.)

We returned sovereignty to the Iraqi people ahead of schedule. We've trained about 100,000 Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel. And the total will rise to 125,000 by the end of this year. These people are fighting for their freedom. They want to be free -- they're being trained to be able to fight and stop these terrorists -- (inaudible) -- defending the march of freedom. We've allocated more than $7 billion for reconstruction efforts so more Iraqis can see the benefit of freedom. We're working with a coalition of some 30 nations to provide security. Other nations are helping with debt relief and reconstruction aid for Iraqis. And although terrorists will try to stop them, Iraq will hold free elections in January -- because the Iraqi people want to be free. (Applause.)

I understand some Americans have strong concerns about our role in Iraq. I respect the fact that they take this issue seriously. It's a serious matter. I assure them we're in Iraq because I deeply believe it is necessary and right and critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and critical for long-term peace for our children and grandchildren. (Applause.)

If another terror regime were allowed to emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home and a source of funding and a source of support, and they would correctly conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves. If Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, a model for hopeful reform in that region, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat. (Applause.) And that is why Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman calls Iraq "a crucial battle in the global war on terrorism." And that is why Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the struggle in Iraq "the crucible in which the future of global terrorism will be determined." That is why the terrorists are fighting with desperate cruelty -- they know their future is at stake. Iraq is no diversion. It's a place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror, and we must not waver. (Applause.)

Unfortunately, my opponent has been known to waver. His well-chosen words and rationalizations cannot explain why he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, and then voted against money for bullets and vehicles and body armor for the troops on the ground.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: He tried to clear it up by saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." Now he says he made a mistake in how he talked about that vote. The mistake is not what Senator Kerry said; the mistake is what Senator Kerry did in voting against funding for our troops in combat. (Applause.) And that is the kind of wavering a nation at war cannot afford.

-- candidate, my opponent promises to defend America. The problem is, as a Senator for two decades, he has built a record of weakness. The record shows he twice led efforts to gut our intelligence service budget. The record shows he voted against many of the weapons that won the Cold War and are vital to current military operations. And the record shows he has voted more than 50 times against missile defense systems that would help protect us from the threats of a dangerous world.

I have a record in office, as well, and all Americans have seen that record. (Applause.) Not all Americans agree with me, but they know where I stand. (Applause.) On September the 14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It's a day I will never forget. There were workers in hard hats yelling to me at the top of their lungs, "Whatever it takes." A guy grabbed me by the arm, he said, "Do not let me down." Ever since that day I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I've acted again and again to make America safe. I will never relent in defending the people of this country, whatever it takes. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

THE PRESIDENT: Twenty-seven days from today, Americans will make a critical choice. My opponent offers an agenda that is stuck in the thinking and policies of the past. On national security, he offers the defensive, reactive mind-set of September the 10th -- a global test to replace American leadership; a strategy of retreat in Iraq, and a 20-year history of weakness. Here at home, he offers a record and an agenda of more taxes and more spending and more litigation, and more government control over your life.

The race for President is a contest for the future -- and you know where I stand. (Applause.) I'm running for President to keep this nation on the offensive against the terrorists with the goal of total victory. I'm running for President to keep this economy moving so every worker has a good job and quality health care, a secure retirement. I'm running for President to make our strong nation a more compassionate society, where no one is left out and every life is valued. (Applause.)

And I have a hopeful vision. I believe this young century will be liberty's century. (Applause.) We'll promote liberty abroad to protect our country and to build a better world beyond the war on terror. We'll encourage liberty at home to spread the prosperity and opportunity to every corner of this great land. I will carry this message to my fellow citizens in the closing days of this campaign. And with your help, we'll carry Michigan and win a great victory in November.

Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) God bless. (Applause.) Thank you all.

END 3:58 P.M. EDT

Not a Diversion

Was Iraq a Diversion From the War on Terror? Bush and McCain Remind Us That the Answer Is: No
by Daniel McKivergan
10/06/2004 3:27:00 PM

WAS REMOVING Saddam Hussein from power a "diversion" from the war on terror, as Senator John Kerry now claims? Or was taking action against the Iraqi regime necessary in a post-September 11 world, as President Bush believes?

In Pennsylvania today, the president explained why Iraq is "no diversion," but "the place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror":

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America. He was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terrorists. There was a risk--a real risk--that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

After 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions, we gave him a final chance to come clean and listen to the demands of the free world. When he chose defiance and war, our coalition enforced the just demands of the world. And the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell. . . .

Our victory requires changing the conditions that produce radicalism and suicide bombers, and finding new democratic allies in a troubled part of the region. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march. And freedom is on the march--in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. There will be good days and there will be bad days in the war on terror, but every day we will show our resolve and we will do our duty. This nation is determined: we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. . . .

After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy.

In our debate, Senator Kerry said that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake because the threat was not imminent. The problem with this approach is obvious: if America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives. Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they launch an attack on our country.

Senator Kerry assures us that he's the one to win a war he calls a mistake, an error, and a diversion. But you can't win a war you don't believe in fighting. In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy of victory. . . .

[W]e're in Iraq because I deeply believe it is necessary and right and critical to the outcome of the war on terror. If another terror regime were allowed to emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home, a source of funding, vital support. They would correctly conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves. If Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, a model of hopeful reform in a region that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat, and every free nation will be more secure.

This is why Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman calls Iraq a "crucial battle in the global war on terrorism." This is why Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the struggle in Iraq "the crucible in which the future of global terrorism will be determined." This is why the terrorists are fighting with desperate cruelty. They know their own future is at stake. Iraq is no diversion; it is the place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror--and we must not waver.

Given the president's remarks today, this may also be a good time to revisit the forceful words of Senator John McCain on the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, spoken during the Republican convention in New York City on August 30, 2004:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. . . .

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times.

By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

Most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.

Daniel McKivergan is deputy director of The Project for the New American Century.

Previous Campaign Memos:

The No-Nukes Party, The Mondale Democrats are alive and well in the U.S. Senate--does John Kerry still believe in their worldview? October 4, 2004

When Was He For It (Before He Was Against It)?, John Kerry gives a disingenuous defense of why he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. September 29, 2004

The Kerry-Kennedy Line, It's a good thing that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy lost the last time they took a stand on Saddam Hussein. September 28, 2004

Kerry's Phony Foreign Forces, Would President Kerry be able to get France and Germany to help share the burden in Iraq? Chirac says, "Non!" September 22, 2004

Nothing To Do With the Truth, John Kerry continues to insist that Saddam Hussein had "nothing to do with al Qaeda." And he continues to be wrong. September 22, 2004

Lugar's Other Comments, The media played up Richard Lugar's recent remarks about President Bush; will they do the same with his assessment of Senator Kerry? September 21, 2004

For Kerry, It's Always Vietnam, The subtext of John Kerry's Monday morning Iraq speech. September 20, 2004

Kerry's Flip-Flopping on Russia, The senator has two views on promoting democracy in Russia, too. September 16, 2004

Wrong Choices, A look at John Kerry's record. September 15, 2004

Another New Kerry Position on Iraq . . . and the same one on Vietnam. September 15, 2004

Kerry and the "Direct Link," The Kerry campaign is distorting Dick Cheney's words. September 13, 2004

Kerry's North Korea Non-policy, John Kerry calls the New York Times with complaints, but no plan. September 13, 2004

If John Kerry Were President, . . . Saddam would still be in power. September 8, 2004

Kerry vs. Kerry, What does "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" mean? September 7, 2004

The Kerry Record, What John Kerry about foreign policy and defense in 1984 and 1985. September 3, 2004

It Was This Big . . ., Does John Kerry still believe that the terror threat is an "exaggeration"? September 1, 2004

John Edwards: Disrespecting Our Allies, America isn't acting alone. September 1, 2004

No Bargain, The "grand bargain" John Kerry and John Edwards are prepared to offer Iran deserves serious scrutiny. September 1, 2004

CIA Details Oil-for-Food Scam

FoxNews
Wednesday, October 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — A new CIA report released Wednesday outlines how Saddam Hussein illegally sponged off the seven-year U.N. Oil-for-Food program to enrich his regime.

The report estimates the deposed Iraqi dictator diverted up to $1 billion over the years from the relief program to fatten his military and industrial capabilities — all right under the U.N.'s nose. The diverted cash, part of a series of bribes and payoffs related to the program, was supposed to go to suffering Iraqis in the form of humanitarian aid and food.

The report by CIA consultant and weapons inspector Charles Duelfer is expected to reveal how Saddam turned the humanitarian program into a cash cow for himself and his cronies. U.S. officials said that in the report, Duelfer asserts that Iraq readily accepted the 1996 program because he knew it would give his government a steady flow of cash, much of which he could toss into his military-industrial complex.

Officials said Duelfer concluded in the report that the move was shrewd because by 1996, five years after the Persian Gulf War, Iraq's domestic economy was in such a sorry state that the regime could have collapsed at that time. The program allowed for the transfer of funds into civilian enterprises that could later have been converted for military use.

The Duelfer report estimates that Saddam's military-industrial budget was $8 million per year in 1996. By 2001, prior to the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the figure had ballooned to $350 million per year. The report credits the Oil-for-Food program for the jump, said the U.S. officials.

The CIA's details come as the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday exposed new details about the Oil-for-Food program's head, Benon Sevan, who has been accused of receiving valuable oil contracts while he ran the program. Sevan has denied receiving bribes or payoffs, but the Journal alleged Sevan received contracts worth more than $1 million over five years.

"We raised issues about smuggling ... concerns about quality of the metering and other tools that we had available to us to conduct our duties under the Oil-for-Food program. We reported those to the U.N. This was outside our mandate to do these things," said John Denson, general counsel for Saybolt, one of the companies that was hired to monitor oil sales and the products entering Iraq bought with the proceeds.

Representatives from Saybolt testified in the House on Tuesday that they were threatened by Iraqi officials — on one occasion by 20 armed guards — and stymied by Saddam's ability to manipulate records and trade.

One European contractor hired by the United Nations to make sure the program was legitimately operating said he also complained that when he brought up allegations of corruption to Sevan, the United Nations did little or nothing to investigate.

Investigators are probing whether Saddam bought off the U.N. Security Council by giving billions in contracts to France, Russia and China, three of the five permanent members on the council. At congressional hearings on Tuesday, House Government Reform subcommittee Chairman Chris Shays, R-Conn., charged that the United Nations turned a blind eye to the corruption.

"It is really sad that we were so eager to end the embargo that we were willing, basically, to set up a program that really amounted to a fraud. Saddam got what he wanted, and yet proclaimed there were still sanctions," Shays said.

Meanwhile, the list of companies with whom Saddam did not want to do business was obtained by investigators working for House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill. The top reason Saddam apparently refused to do business with companies was that they also sold materials to what Iraqis called "The Zionist entity," in other words, Israel.

FOX News' Eric Shawn and Ian McCaleb and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Report: No Iraq WMD Production After '91

FoxNews
Wednesday, October 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991.

But the final report by Charles Duelfer concluded that, although the weapons stockpiles were destroyed, Saddam’s government was looking to begin a WMD program again.

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMDs
"The Duelfer Report"
30 September 2004

Click here to read Key Findings Report, 19 pages, pdf.

Click here to read Volume I, 450 pages, pdf.

Click here to read Volume II, 268 pages, pdf.

Click here to read Volume III, 248 pages, pdf.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the grounds that its WMD programs posed a threat to American national security.

In his report, Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons, but he said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived once international attention waned.

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," a U.S. official said on condition of anonymity, ahead of the report's Wednesday afternoon release by the CIA.

U.S. officials also said the report shows Saddam was much farther away from a nuclear weapons program in 2003 than he was between 1991 and 1993; there is no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel in developing weapons.

The White House continued to maintain that the findings support the view that Saddam was a threat.

"We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America," President Bush said in a speech Wednesday in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Duelfer was presenting his findings Wednesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee. His team compiled a 1,500-page report after his predecessor, David Kay, who quit last December, also found no evidence of weapons stockpiles.

The CIA officially released the Duelfer report about 3 p.m. EDT Wednesday on its Web site, though some of its conclusions were leaked to the media in advance.

Partisans on both sides of the aisle didn't waste time reacting to Duelfer's conclusions.

"The Duelfer report is yet another example that there really are two Americas," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. "There's the one that exists in the Bush fantasy world, and then there's the real America. In the Bush fantasy world, they still claim that Iraq was an imminent threat with weapons of mass destruction."

But Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the report didn't really offer any new insights.

"I really don't think (the report) changes anything," Roberts said. "Everybody made the wrong assumption (about the WMD threat)."

Duelfer concluded that Saddam's regime hoped to convince the world it had complied with the United Nations resolutions implemented after the first Gulf War and wanted the U.N. to lift the strict sanctions against the country.

Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said.

Instead, the report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining “intellectual capital” — in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials.

Duelfer and the multi-national Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which also worked on the report, say it’s still not known whether Iraq moved weapons caches to Syria or other countries.

The ISG is still poring over thousands of official Baathist documents that have yet to be translated. Currently, some 900 linguists have been hired and are working in Qatar to get the job done.

About 35 to 50 “old, decayed” chemical and biological shells have been found in Iraq so far, all of which are said to have been produced in the 1980s.

Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining industrial capability that could be converted to produce weapons, officials have said. Duelfer also describes Saddam's Iraq as having had limited research efforts into chemical and biological weapons.

Duelfer's report will come on a week that the White House has been defending a number of issues involving its Iraq policy and the war there.

Remarks this week by L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in occupied Iraq, suggested he'd argued for more troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, when looting was rampant.

A spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign said Bremer indeed differed with military commanders.

Bush's election rival, Democrat John Kerry, pounced on Bremer's statements that the United States "paid a big price" for having insufficient troop levels.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Duelfer report "will continue to show that he [Saddam] was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

But Vice President Dick Cheney said in an Aug. 26, 2002 speech, 6 1/2 months before the invasion, that "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

On Wednesday, the White House also continued to assert that there were clear ties between Saddam before the invasion and the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But a CIA report recently given to the White House found no conclusive evidence that Saddam had given al-Zarqawi support and shelter before the war, according to ABC News and Knight-Ridder.

The CIA report did not make final conclusions about a Saddam-Zarqawi tie, but does raise questions about the Bush administration's assertions that al-Zarqawi found a safe harbor in Baghdad before the invasion — and raises questions about whether Saddam even knew al-Zarqawi was there.

During Tuesday night's debate, Cheney said "there is still debate over this question." But he added: "At one point, some of Zarqawi's people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released."

In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush laid out what he described then as Iraq's threat:

—"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

—"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

—"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. "

What U.S. forces found:

—A single artillery shell filled with two chemicals that, when mixed while the shell was in flight, would have created sarin. U.S. forces learned of it only when insurgents, apparently believing it was filled with conventional explosives, tried to detonate it as a roadside bomb in May in Baghdad. Two U.S. soldiers suffered from symptoms of low-level exposure to the nerve agent. The shell was from Saddam's pre-1991 stockpile.

—Another old artillery shell, also rigged as a bomb and found in May, showed signs it once contained mustard agent.

—Two small rocket warheads, turned over to Polish troops by an informer, that showed signs they once were filled with sarin.

—Centrifuge parts buried in a former nuclear scientist's garden in Baghdad. These were part of Saddam's pre-1991 nuclear program, which was dismantled after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The scientist also had centrifuge design documents.

—A vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, in another scientist's refrigerator. The scientist said it had been there since 1993.

—Evidence of advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up to 620 miles. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had been prohibited from having missiles with ranges longer than 93 miles.

FOX News' Ian McCaleb, Bret Baier, Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Bush in Pennsylvania

Transcript: Bush in Pennsylvania

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

The following is a transcript of President Bush’s remarks at a campaign event in Wilkes Barre, Pa. on October 6, 2004.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you all.

(APPLAUSE)

Please be seated. Thank you all.

(APPLAUSE)

Gosh, thanks for such a great welcome. I appreciate it.

It's great to be in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. It's such an honor to be back here. I'm glad to be in a part of the world where people work hard, they love their families.

Good to be a part of the world where people like to hunt and fish.

My regret is that Laura is not with me. She is...

AUDIENCE: Awwww.

BUSH: I know it.

(LAUGHTER)

That's generally the reaction.

Kind of like, "Why didn't you stay home and send Laura?"

(LAUGHTER)

You're not going to believe this, this is a true story, or kind of true.

(LAUGHTER)

I said, "Will you marry me?" She said, "Fine, just so long as I never have to give a speech."

(LAUGHTER)

I said, "OK, you got a deal." Fortunately, she didn't hold me to that promise.

(LAUGHTER)

When Laura speaks, people see a compassionate, decent, strong first lady.

(APPLAUSE)

I had my morning briefing today with someone you're familiar with. That would be your former governor, Tom Ridge. So Laura sends her best, as does Tom Ridge.

Today I traveled with Don Sherwood. As we say in Crawford, he's a good one.

(LAUGHTER)

He's a great member of the United States House of Representatives. I'm proud to work with him. He cares deeply about the people of this important part of the state of Pennsylvania. He is a fine representative who brings integrity to the office.

I appreciate ... there's no doubt in my mind we'll carry Pennsylvania.

(APPLAUSE)

I am sure many of you stayed up to watch the vice presidential debate last night. America saw two very different visions of our country and two different hairdos.

(LAUGHTER)

I didn't pick my vice president for his hairdo, I picked him for his judgment, his experience ... He's a great vice president. I'm proud to be running with him.

In less than a month you'll have a chance to vote for Dick Cheney and me. Think about that: less than a month. I'm looking forward to coming down the stretch with a positive, strong message.

As your president, I've worked to make America a more hopeful and more secure place. I've led our country with principle and resolve. And that's how I will lead our nation for four more years.

When I took office in 2001, the bubble of the '90s had burst, our economy was headed into recession. And because of the attacks of September the 11th, nearly a million jobs were lost in three months.

It was a dangerous time for our economy. People were warning of potential deflation and depression. But I acted.

To stimulate the economy I called on Congress to pass historic tax relief, which it did without my opponent's yes vote.

The tax relief was the fuel that got our economy growing again. Thanks to the efforts of our citizens, and the right policies at the right place at the right time, we put the recession behind us and America is creating jobs once again.

We have built a broad and solid record of accomplishment. In the past year, the United States of America has added about 1.7 million new jobs. More than Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Canada and France combined. Real after-tax income -- that's the money in your pocket to spend on groceries or house payments and rent -- is up more than 10 percent since I took office.

Homeownership is at an all-time high in America. Farm income is up. Small businesses are flourishing. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong in the United States of America.

Ours is a record of accomplishment. Thanks to reforms in education, math and reading scores are increasing in our public schools.

Ten million students will get record levels of grants and loans to help with college. Low-income seniors are getting $600 extra to help pay for medicine this year and their drug discount cards. And soon Medicare will offer prescription drug coverage to every senior in America.

We have made America a stronger, more hopeful country and we're just getting started. I like to travel our country because I have a chance to talk to our fellow citizens.

I understand the challenges facing our nation. People are living and working in a time of change. Workers switch jobs more than they used to, which means they often need new skills and benefits they can take with them from job to job.

We're in a changing world. And yet the systems of government haven't changed. I'm running for four more years to change the systems of government so people can better realize the great dreams of America.

Making sure people realize those dreams, it's essential that our education systems work. We're going to raise the standards and expectations in every high school. We'll invest in our nation's fine community colleges so workers can be prepared to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

We're going to expand health savings account so people can pay health expenses with tax-free money and keep the savings if they change jobs. We're going to improve Social Security to allow younger workers to own a piece of their own retirement, a nest egg that the Washington politicians can never take away.

To keep this economy strong and competitive, we must make sure America is the best place in the world to start a business and to do business. To make sure America's the best place in the world to start a business, our taxes must be low. Congress must make the tax relief we passed permanent.

To keep jobs here, there need to be less regulations on our small businesses. To keep jobs here, we must pass an energy plan that makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To make sure jobs exist here in America, we got to do something about these junk and frivolous lawsuits.

Trial lawyers shouldn't be getting rich at the expense of our entrepreneurs and our doctors. My opponent and I have a very different view on how to grow our economy. Let me start with taxes.

I have a record of reducing them. He has a record of raising them. He's voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes 98 times. That's a lot.

(LAUGHTER)

He voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits. In 1997, he voted for the formula that helped cause the increase in Medicare premiums.

My opponent was against all of our middle-class tax relief. He voted instead to squeeze another $2,000 per year from the average middle-class family.

Now the senator's proposing higher taxes on more than 900,000 small-business owners.

My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes, and that's the kind of promise a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

He says the tax increase is only for the rich. You've heard that kind of rhetoric before.

Rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason: to stick you with the tab. The senator's not going to tax you, because we're going to win in November.

The senator and I have different views on another threat to our economy: frivolous lawsuits. He's been a part of the Washington crowd that has obstructed legal reform again and again.

Meanwhile, all across America unfair lawsuits are hurting small businesses. Lawsuits are driving up health care costs. Lawsuits are threatening OB/GYNs all across our country.

Lawsuits are driving good doctors out of practice. We need a president who will stand up to the trial lawyers in Washington, not put one on the ticket.

The senator and I have very different views on health care. ... help Americans find health care that's available and affordable, lawsuit reform, association health care plans to help our small businesses, health savings accounts, community health centers to help the poor, expanding health care for low-income children, using technology to drive down the cost of health care.

He has a different vision. Under his health plan, 8 million Americans would lose the private insurance they get at work and most would end up on a government program. Under his plan, eight out of 10 people who get new insurance will get it from the federal government.

My opponent's proposal would be the largest expansion of government-run health care ever. And when government pays the bills, government makes the rules. His plan would put bureaucrats in charge of dictating coverage, which could ration care and limit your choice of doctor.

Senator Kerry's proposal would put us on the path to Clinton care.

I'll make sure doctors and patients are in charge of the decisions in America's health care.

The senator and I have different views on government spending. Over the years he's voted 274 times to break the federal budget limits. And in this campaign, Senator Kerry's announced more than $2 trillion of new spending. And that's a lot of money, even for a senator from Massachusetts.

During his 20 years as a senator, my opponent hasn't had many accomplishments. Of the hundreds of bills he submitted only five became law. One of them was ceremonial.

But to be fair, he's earned a special distinction in Congress. The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate. And when the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something.

I'm telling you, I know that bunch. Wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. Might even say it was hard work.

But he earned that title by voting for higher taxes, more regulation, more junk lawsuits and more government control over your life.

And that sets up a real difference in this campaign. My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal. I'm a compassionate conservative.

My opponent wants to empower government. I want to use government to empower people.

My opponent seems to think all of the wisdom is found in Washington, D.C. I trust the wisdom of the American people.

Our differences are also clear on issues of national security. When I took office in 2001, threats to America had been gathering for years. Then on one terrible morning, the terrorists took more lives than America lost at Pearl Harbor.

Since that day we have waged a global campaign to protect the American people and bring our enemies to account. Our government has trained over a half a million first responders. We tripled spending on homeland security. Law enforcement intelligence have better tools to stop terrorists thanks to the Patriot Act -- which Senator Kerry voted for, but now wants to weaken.

The Taliban regime that sheltered Al Qaeda is gone from power and the people of Afghanistan will vote in free elections this very week.

A black market network that provided weapons materials to North Korea and Libya and Iran is now out of business.

Libya itself has given up its weapons of mass destruction programs.

We convinced Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to join the fight against the terrorists. And more than three-quarters of Al Qaeda's key members and associates have been brought to justice.

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder.

We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons and one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America. He was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terrorists.

There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks.

In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

After 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions, we gave him a final chance to come clean and listen to the demands of the free world.

When he chose defiance and war, our coalition enforced the just demands of the world. And the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell.

We've had many victories in the war on terror and that war goes on. Our nation is safer but not yet safe.

To win this war, we must fight on every front. We'll stay on the offensive against terrorist networks, striking them before they come to America to hurt us. We'll confront governments that support terrorists and could arm them, because they're equally guilty of terrorist murder.

And our long-term victory requires confronting the ideology of hate with freedom and hope.

Our victory requires changing the conditions that produce radicalism and suicide bombers and finding new democratic allies in a troubled part of the region. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march and freedom is on the march in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere.

There will be good days and there will be bad days in the war on terror. But every day we will show our resolve and we will do our duty. This nation is determined: We will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

My opponent agrees with all this except when he doesn't. Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat.

Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake but also called the liberation of Iraq a colossal error. He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there.

He said he wants to hold a summit meeting so he can invite other countries to join what he calls the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror. You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face.

(APPLAUSE)

My opponent's endless back and forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous. Senator Kerry approaches the world with a September-the-10th mindset.

He declared in his convention speech that any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. That was the mindset of the 1990s, while Al Qaeda was planning the attacks on America.

After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to was not imminent. The problem with this approach is obvious: If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives.

Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they launch an attack on our country. I refuse to stand by while dangers gather. In the world after September the 11th, the path to safety is the path of action. And I will continue to defend the people of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you all.

My opponent has also announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that Americans actions in the war on terror must pass a global test.

Under this test, America would not be able to act quickly against threats because we're sitting around waiting for our grade from other nations and other leaders.

I have a different view. America will always work with allies for security and peace, but the president's job is not to pass a global test. The president's job is to protect the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you all.

When my opponent first ran for Congress, he argued that American troops should be deployed only at the directive of the United Nations.

Now, he's changed his mind.

(LAUGHTER)

No, he has, in all fairness. But it is a window into his thinking.

Over the years, Senator Kerry has looked for every excuse to constrain America's action in the world. These days he praises America's broad coalition in the Gulf War, but in 1991 he criticized those coalition members as, quote, "shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Sounds familiar.

At that time he voted against the war. If that coalition didn't pass his global test clearly nothing will.

This mindset will paralyze America in a dangerous world. I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart.

My opponent's doctrine has other consequences, especially for our men and women in uniform. My opponent supports the International Criminal Court, which would allow unaccountable foreign prosecutors and judges to put American soldiers on trial. That would be a legal nightmare for our troops.

My fellow citizens, as long as I'm your president, Americans in uniform will answer to the officers and laws of the United States, not to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The senator speaks often about his plan to strengthen America's alliances, but he's got an odd way of doing it. In the middle of the war, he's chosen to insult America's fighting allies by calling them "window dressing" and "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed." The Italians who died in Nasiriyah were not window dressing. They were heroes in the war on terror.

The British and the Poles at the head of the multinational divisions in Iraq were not coerced or bribed. They have fought and some have died in the cause of freedom.

These good allies and dozens of others deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. Instead, the senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own.

This is my opponent's alliance-building strategy: brush off your best friends, fawn over your critics. And that is no way to gain the respect of the world.

My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. It should sound pretty familiar. It's already known as the Bush plan.

Senator Kerry suggests we train Iraqi troops, which we've been doing for months. Just this week Iraqi forces backed by coalition troops fought bravely to take the city of Samarra from terrorists and Baathist insurgents.

Senator Kerry's proposing that Iraq have elections. Those elections are already scheduled for ... Kerry's plan that's a new element. He's talked about artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq.

He sent the signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave even if the job isn't done. That may satisfy his political needs, but it complicates the essential work we're doing in Iraq.

The Iraqi people need to know that America will not cut and run when their freedom is at stake. Our soldiers and Marines need to know that America will honor their service and sacrifice by completing the mission. And our enemies in Iraq need to know that they can never outlast the will of America.

Senator Kerry assures us that he's the one to win a war he calls a mistake, an error and a diversion. But you can't win a war if you don't believe in fighting. On Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat. I have a strategy of victory.

(APPLAUSE)

We returned sovereignty to the Iraqi people ahead of schedule. We've trained about 100,000 Iraqi soldiers police officers and other security personnel and that total will rise to 125,000 by year-end.

We've already allocated more than $7 billion for reconstruction efforts so more Iraqis can see the benefits of freedom.

We're working with a coalition of some 30 nations to provide security. Other nations are helping with debt relief and reconstruction aid for Iraqis.

And although the terrorists will try to stop them, Iraq will hold free elections in January, because the Iraqi people want and deserve to govern themselves.

I understand some Americans have strong concerns about our role in Iraq. I respect the fact that they take this issue seriously, because it is a serious matter. I assure them we're in ... If another terror regime were allowed to emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home, a source of funding, vital support. They would correctly conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves.

If Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, a model of hopeful reform in a region that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat and every free nation will be more secure.

This is why Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman calls Iraq, "a crucial battle in the global war on terrorism."

This is why Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the struggle in Iraq, "the crucible in which the future of global terrorism will be determined."

This is why the terrorists are fighting with desperate cruelty. They know their own future is at stake.

Iraq is no diversion. It is the place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror. And we must not waver.

Unfortunately, my opponent has been known to waver.

His well-chosen words and rationalizations cannot explain why he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein and then voted against money for bullets and vehicles and body armor for the troops on the ground. He tried to clear it all up by saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion dollars before I voted against it."

(LAUGHTER)

Now he says he made a mistake in how he talked about the war.

The mistake here is not what Senator Kerry said, the mistake is what he did in voting against funding for Americans in combat. That is the kind of wavering a nation at war can never afford.

As a candidate, my opponent promises to defend America. The problem is that the senator, for two decades, he has built a record of weakness.

The record shows he twice led efforts to gut our intelligence service budgets. The record shows he voted against many of the weapons that won the Cold War and are vital to current military operations. And the record shows he has voted more than 50 times against missile defense systems that would help protect us from the threats of a dangerous world.

I have a record in office as well and all Americans have seen that record.

On September the 14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the twin towers and it's a day I will never forget. There were workers in hard hats yelling at me, "Whatever it takes."

I remember trying to console people coming out of that rubble and a guy grabbed me by the arm and he looked me in the eye and said, "Do not let me down."

These men and women there took it personally. You took it personally. I took it personally.

I have a responsibility that goes on. I wake up every morning thinking about how to make our country more secure. I have acted again and again to protect our people. I will never relent in defending America whatever it takes.

Twenty-seven days from today Americans will make a critical choice.

My opponent offers an agenda that is stuck in the thinking and the policies of the past. On national security, he offers the defensive mindset of September the 10th: a global test to replace American leadership, a strategy of retreat in Iraq and a 20-year history of weakness in the United States Senate.

Here at home, he offers a record and an agenda of more taxes and more spending and more litigation and more government control over your life.

The race for president is a contest for the future, and you know where I stand.

I'm running for president to keep this nation on the offensive against terrorists, with the goal of total victory.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm running for president to keep this economy moving so every worker has a good job and quality health care and a secure retirement.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm running for president to make our nation a more compassionate society, where no one is left out, where every life matters.

I have a hopeful vision. I believe this young century will be liberty's century. We'll promote liberty abroad, protect our country and build a better world beyond the war on terror. We'll encourage liberty at home, to spread the prosperity and opportunity of America to every corner of our country.

I will carry this message to my fellow citizens in the closing days of this campaign. And with your help, we will win a great victory on November the 2nd.

God bless. God bless our great country.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you all. Thanks for coming.

(APPLAUSE)

The Man Who Would Be President, Part II

The Man Who Would Be President
Part II
Danny Calhoun
http://www.christian-news-in-maine.com
September 7th, 2004

This is the second in a series of articles about John Kerry. They are intended to present facts about him and his phony war record that the media refuses to cover. Facts that might affect his ability to lead our country and question his true character. If you are close minded, blinded by partisan politics or an "enlightened, diverse and tolerant liberal" you may not want to read this article.

When you read the below ask yourself why are hundreds of highly decorated honorable Vietnam veterans, including at least one who served on his boat, who served along side him on the Swift Boats and millions of other veterans questioning his claims of heroism?

Why has the Judicial Watch organization sued demanding an investigation into his claims by the Department of Defense?

Why will he not allow his book "Tour of Duty" to be reprinted?

Why will Wal-Mart, Borders and other major bookstores not restock or even stock the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth book, "UNFIT FOR COMMAND," which is becoming a national best seller.

Why does Kerry only attack the groups questioning him instead of disproving their allegations?

Why has Kerry stopped the publication of his new book recounting his heroics in Vietnam?

Why will he not simply release his medical records showing the extent and treatment for his "wounds?" I guess it's as Hilary said, "A vast right-wing conspiracy," and we all know how that one turned out.

FACT: JIM RASSMAN

Always standing proudly at Kerry's side Rassman is eager to tell how Kerry saved his life in Vietnam. He recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for saving him (Kerry received the Bronze Star instead). His memory seems to falter at times as he has told at least 2 differing accounts about the rescue.

Mr. Rassman is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. He is being flown around the country in private jets; staying in 5 star hotels, eating in the finest restaurants and having his ego stroked daily, by the Kerry campaign. It would be very interesting to know how much the campaign is reimbursing him for his "expenses and time."

Perhaps Kerry wouldn't be so quick to use him if he knew exactly what kind of character Rassman has.

Rassman and I both worked as Los Angeles County California Deputy Sheriffs from the mid 1970,s thru the late 1980's. The word is he was forced to retire (medical) due to numerous occasions of sexual harassment of female employees and civilians and other allegations. One Deputy described his actions as "reminiscent of the Pirates of the Caribbean Disneyland ride when the pirates were chasing the women." (paraphrased)

Just recently, in Oregon, Rassman was sued by the wife of another retired Deputy Sheriff for sexual harassment. He lost and paid a large settlement to the Deputy's wife.

Just the kind of man to stand up for Kerry.

KERRY'S HERO STATUS
No one is disputing the fact that Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts in Vietnam. Kerry keeps insisting that he has made his Vietnam records available. This is just not true. He has released only the records showing that he received the medals. He refuses to release almost 100 pages of his records, including his medical records showing the extent and treatment of the "wounds" he received the medals for. He also refuses to release most copies of his "Boats Log" and other personal records His spokesmen have stated that "the records have been released." Yes, but to only one person to "organize" for a possible book.

NAVY POLICY
It is important to remember that Navy regulations state that if a person receives 3 Purple Hearts they are entitled to request transfer out of a combat zone. Even though no other Swift Boat crewmen, that were not seriously wounded and required to, requested to leave early, that is exactly what Kerry did.

REASON FOR REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OUT OF COMBAT ZONE
In the 1971 debate with John O'Neill (Author of "UNFIT FOR COMMAND") on the Dick Cavett Show, Kerry made it sound like his decision to leave Vietnam early was a hard one to make. He said "----after I received my third wound, I was told I could return to the United States. I deliberated for about 2 weeks because there was a difficult decision in whether or not you leave your friends----." This was proven to be another lie. Records show that Kerry received his 3rd "wound" on March 13, 1969. On March 17th, 1969, at 7:42 AM, his written request to leave Vietnam was received and logged in at the Navy Department, in Washington, D.C.

It is also interesting to note that this debate took place in 1971. So much for Kerry's claim that the Swift Boat veterans just now started questioning his military record to assist President Bush.

SWIFT BOAT DUTY
It is also important to remember that Kerry made it known that he needed "in-country Vietnam time" for his political resume. When he volunteered for Swift Boat duty the assignment was a relatively safe one. Only after Kerry was assigned did the duty become a very hazardous one.

FACT: PURPLE HEART NUMBER 1
Kerry's campaign staff has already stated that Kerry may have been "confused" about his heroic Christmas Eve 1968 journey into Cambodia. (SEE PART 1) Now they are starting to back track on his deserving his first Purple Heart. They are stating that "it may have been an unintentional self-inflicted wound." They issued this statement after a copy of one of Kerry's boat logs surfaced in which he wrote nine days later that "as of that time he nor his crew had been shot at."

Commander Grant Hibbard (retired) was Kerry's Commanding Officer while he was training for Swift Boat duty. He states that he sent Kerry on a training mission with one of his most trusted Boat Commanders, on Dec. 2nd, 1968. The following day during a de-briefing it was reported that the mission never received any enemy fire, no shots were fired by them or at them in combat. He said Kerry advised him of a wound and showed him "a scratch on his arm and a small piece of shrapnel in his hand. Kerry requested to be given a Purple Heart and was told basically "to forget it."

He was advised by the Boat Commander that Kerry had practice fired an M-79 Grenade Launcher which hit the riverbank and blew shrapnel back on to the boat. He said he "chewed Kerry out" over the incident. Under these conditions Kerry would not be eligible for a Purple Heart.

Hibbard states that he later found out Kerry received a Purple Heart for the injury several months later and "he has no information as to how or whom." This is one of issues that Judicial Watch is demanding be investigated.

After leaving the de-briefing Kerry reported to the base hospital to seek treatment for "his wound." He was seen by Navy Doctor Letman, who states he remembers the incident because he was treating servicemen with serious injuries and was amazed that Kerry would seek treatment for such a minor injury. He said he removed a "sliver" of shrapnel from the back of Kerry's hand using "tweezers," cleaned the area and covered it with a bandage. Please note that this was the next day and Kerry was still walking around with this "sliver" in his hand. The sliver of shrapnel wound was described as "the size caused by a thorn."

Also, it is interesting to note that Georgia Senator Max Cleland, an undisputed Vietnam hero, who Kerry recently sent to Texas to deliver a letter to President Bush, lost both legs, an arm and sustained other horrible wounds in a grenade explosion while in-country Vietnam. He accidentally dropped a grenade while at a base camp causing the injuries. He DID NOT receive a Purple Heart for those injuries due to them being "accidentally self-inflicted in a non-combat situation," just as Kerry's "wound" was.

Another interesting note. Terry McAuliffe, of Kerry's staff has consistently referred to Cleland as "A triple amputee who left 3 limbs on the battlefields of Vietnam." This is obviously intended to make people think that Cleland was wounded in combat.

KERRY'S SILVER STAR
I am still researching the facts on his receiving this medal. However, there are a couple of interesting things to note about Kerry's Silver Star.

When receiving a Silver Star and other personal medals for heroism they must be accompanied by a written citation and other documentation showing the actions taken that earned the medal. Kerry has 3 DIFFERENT citations for his Silver Star. Admiral Zumwalt wrote the first at the time of the incident. This one does not appear on Kerry's web page. Admiral John Hyland wrote the 2nd one. The 3rd one was alleged to be written (it shows it was signed by him) by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan Administration, which contains several revisions and additional wording embellishing the facts. Among that wording, which did not appear in the first 2 citations, is included "by his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty---" The 2nd and 3rd citations do appear on his web page.

None of the experts on military awards shown these 3 citations can ever remember seeing 3 separate citations for the same medal. Letman has recently stated he has no idea why this 3rd citation was written under his name and is asking for an investigation. He stated the same about Kerry's 2nd Bronze Star Citation (see below.)

KERRY'S BRONZE STAR
This one is also still being researched. However, this also has 2 separate citations. One written by Adm. Zumwalt at the time of the incident and the 2nd again by Secretary of the Navy Lehman during the Reagan Administration. The 2nd one also embellishes Kerry's actions.

KERRY'S DD-214 FORM
Kerry's Military DD-214 FORM, which is a recap of his military career showing his assignments, medals and awards and other information, also has a couple of "discrepancies." It shows his Silver Star as having a "V" for valor attachment. The "V" for valor attachment is not authorized for the Silver Star Medal. The very nature of the medal indicates valor so the attachment is not needed.

His DD-214 also shows his Vietnam Service Medal has having 4 Campaign Stars (Battle Stars). The stars are issued for participation in any of the named 17 Department of Defense campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973. Kerry's time in Vietnam would have only qualified him for 2 campaign stars; one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI" and one for "TET69, Counteroffensive," if he participated in those operations.

Kerry's discharge shown on his web site also shows that he was not discharged until July 13, 1978. He should have been discharged in July of 1972. Why is there a 6-year delay in his discharge?

The above "discrepancies" are being investigated as records become available and are part of the investigation Judicial Watch has sued to have done by the Department of Defense.

As more and more facts about Kerry's "heroism" come out more questions are being raised by more people about what the truth really is.

Again folks regardless of your political affiliation or feelings toward President Bush the doubts are there. This man is a phony.

More next week on Kerry's medals.

But then, that's just my opinion.