An E-mail to send to Bush supporters that will change their minds:

[Aunt Anti-bush]

In an earlier post, I wrote about changing my niece's mind about Bush. Over the weekend she told me she knew Bush was corrupt in some way but she was still going to vote for him because her husband is in Iraq and even though a vote for Kerry would bring him home sooner, she worried that he wouldn't have the ample supplies, armor and weaponry he needs while he's there should Kerry be elected. I told her she had been misled by Bush ads and that I would send her verifiable information on why I am voting for Kerry and I made her promise to read it. She did and she has now decided to vote for Kerry. She is a republican, by the way. A couple DUers asked me to post the letter, so here it is. Please feel free to use all or any part of it in your encounters with Bush supporters.

Mary,

This is going to be a pretty long e-mail, but I pray that you take the time to read it. After we spoke the other day, I was moved to send some of the information I’ve uncovered while I’ve been researching our current administration. Again, if you have any information I am missing here, please, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me, because I want to make the best choice when voting this year because I know that this is probably the most critical time in our history where voting is concerned. Please, feel free to pass this along to anyone whom you feel may be interested. Also, I implore you to go to http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/iraq/UNCOVERED.-.The.Whole.Truth.About.The.Iraq.War and watch the movie. It isn’t some propaganda-laced bullcrap like Fahrenheit 9-11. It is a true documentary and it is something all Americans absolutely need to see.

You probably know that I am a registered democrat. The views I express are non-partisan because I feel that we should all vote for which ever candidate would be the best and I have at times voted on the other side of the fence because I felt that it was the right choice. That is why, especially for our national election I do my homework. I have done MORE homework regarding politics this time than ever before because it had become mighty interesting to me once I started to uncover things.

I have saved news articles since 2000 on national politics. I have researched court documents and other public records. I’ve paid attention to both political parties and even Nader’s camp. There is so much more going on behind the scenes than I could ever get across to you in an email. I have about 7 full CDs full of news articles, photos and court documents along with about 15 floppy disks full. Plus I have more stored in my computer right now that I don’t have any disk space for. Believe me when I say to you that I have done my research. (If you don’t believe me, you’re welcome to stop by when you have a chance and I can show you anything you’d like to see but it might take a week or two to go through all of the stuff I have saved.)

In this e-mail I am going to address the main issues you mentioned that you are concerned with and I want to talk a little bit about a couple of the things I am concerned with that I feel you will be interested in as well. Again, I know this will be probably the longest e-mail you’ve ever received, but it is extremely important. Please, if you require further verification of ANY of the issues I bring forth, feel free to ask. I can back up everything I say.

I am not going to address the current administration by name for reasons that may or may not be apparent to you. I will use the * symbol when referring to W.

First I am going to tell you that without a doubt I was completely behind the entire * administration back in March of last year. When all hell was breaking loose regarding Iraq, I had my doubts but I watched Colin Powell address the UN and after the proof that was exposed there I was completely convinced that * had our nation’s best interests at heart and I gave him my utmost respect, admiration and support. I even talked family and friends into supporting the decision to go to war based on the information that was given to the UN. Without going into too much detail, that information has all been proved to be false and exaggerated now. When I first started finding out that the information given that day was erroneous I got worried and to be quite honest it was a slap in the face. Being a democrat to begin with, it was quite insulting to know I supported * based on lies and errors in the intelligence. That is when I really started to pay attention to details. You cannot possibly know the anger I feel knowing that Dan and so many others are serving over there based on an administration that had selfish motives.

First, let me address PNAC, "The Project for a New American Century". In their self-titled document written in 1997, PNAC outlines a plan for the US to begin systematically taking over the world. As crazy as it may sound their documents say as much. A gentleman by the name of Dov Zakheim called for a "Pearl Harbor" type of incident necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region. The document further outlines plans and ideas for taking over the world by way of force. I refer you to their website www.newamericancentury.org where you can read this and other documents that they’ve got posted. (I gave you the wrong website address when we were on the phone the other day, sorry.) It is some serious foreign policy that was being implemented by people who planned to be in charge one day.

Mary, that is just the first in MANY strange "co-incidences" surrounding PNAC’s plans, the 2000 Election scandal, Iraq and September 11th.

One of PNAC’s founding members is Dick Cheney. You said yourself that you already are aware that * is just the puppet for Dick Cheney. The frightening thing is however Dick Cheney isn’t the only one in charge of our country. PNAC is. This is unprecidented and I was totally freaked out when I started to connect the dots so to speak. I had never heard one iota of information about this organization before I found it on my own and once I learned that The US is led by a group that I had never even heard of, I really wanted to understand it all.

I downloaded their documents and began to read them. I quickly got chills up and down my spine when I realized these were blueprints for taking over the world. They outwardly admit to being a "New World Order." This is the kind of crap the 700 Club would talk about and I used to make fun of my mother in law for buying that bull shit. Dov Zakheim's name should be a household name for the simple fact that he’s the man who has drawn up the documents that have led us into this war. Have you ever heard of him before, Mary?

In a letter dated January 26, 1998, they wrote in a letter to Bill Clinton: We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.

Since uncovering that I have found that everything that led us into this war was based on one lie after another. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that Saddam is out of power because he was a danger to his own people. Ask the UN inspectors if he was truthfully a threat to the United States and they’d give you a resounding, "No." Also, he had no ties or relationship with terrorism. Al Qaeda’s ideology is completely the opposite of Saddam Hussein’s. The two were in opposition not in cohorts.

The weapons of mass destruction we discussed. They have not been found and according to the inspectors those weapons were destroyed as early as 1992. They hadn’t found any weapons by March of last year and when they asked the United States to give them more time, they were told that they’d had plenty of time and it was time to take drastic measures to find those weapons. Now, our government says that finding these weapons is time consuming and that even after a year it may take more time. These are not my opinions, Mary. These are the facts.

The June 11, 2003, Guardian, a UK newspaper, headlined with Hans Blix's claim "I was smeared by the Pentagon". In an exclusive interview with the Guardian's Helena Smith, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector "lashed out last night at the 'bastards' who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post. ... In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr. Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq."

"Mr. Blix said: 'I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much. ... It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant.'

"In a wide-ranging interview Mr. Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:

The * administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;

Some elements of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and

Washington of regarding the UN as an 'alien power' which they hoped would sink into the East River.

Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said, "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."

This is another thing I have found to be a common occurrence in this administration. Those who have come out against them have been smeared in one way or another. Have you heard about Valerie Plame? If not, google it and see what they’ve done to her because her husband revealed that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were bogus. There is worse information I have on how they’ve dealt with people who’ve gotten in their way, but I wont discuss it in an email or by telephone. You’ll have to come over one day and I can show you the files. Some are quite frightening.

If you’re wondering what the real reasons for the war are besides PNAC’s desire to ‘rule the world’, simply search for The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. *Sr has ties to the first and Cheney to the latter. They are making millions while our soldiers are putting themselves in harms way. These are just a couple of the business ties to the war that * is profiting from but there are others.

I have a feeling that you already understand some of this because of your comment that you are aware that * is corrupt. So, that’s all I’ll say about that issue.

Now, I would like to address some of your concerns. You’ve apparently seen the *advertisements and I want to go over a few of them here:

On April 26 the * campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

"Weapons"

*: I’m George W. * and I approve this message.

Announcer: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.

Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

The * campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the * campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the * campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would *'s father, who was president at the time.

Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"

McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.

McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

McCain is heading *'s re-election efforts in Arizona. And speaking of Arizona, it was among nine states targeted by different versions of the same * ad.

************************************

*-Cheney '04 launched a new attack ad against Kerry in West Virginia on March 16, calling him "wrong on defense" because he voted against last year's $87-billion supplemental appropriation to support military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"Troops"

*: I’m George W. * and I approve this message.

Announcer: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq , he later voted against funding our soldiers.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Body armor for troops in combat.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Higher combat pay.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: And, better health care for reservists and their families…

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Wrong on defense.

The ad characterizes that as voting "against funding our soldiers." It shows Kerry casting specific "no" votes on body armor for troops, higher combat pay and health-care benefits for reservists, all of which were in fact included in the bill.

But it is also true, as Kerry has been saying, that * sent US troops to Iraq with too little of the best-grade body armor to equip all who needed it.

On March 18 the * campaign updated their ad to include footage of Kerry saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry had co-sponsored an amendment, which was defeated, to pay for the measure by rolling back some of *'s tax cuts. The * campaign said Kerry's words showed him equivocating.

The * ad says Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." In fact, Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant * authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against *'s request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ad strains the facts in some places. Granting * the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing (though Kerry had a difficult time convincing many Democratic voters of that.) And Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as the ad depicts him doing. There was one vote on the entire package.

"No" on Body Armor?

Nevertheless, the bill Kerry opposed did contain $300 million requested by the Pentagon to buy best-grade body armor for all troops in Iraq, and also contained additional combat pay and health benefits for reservists called to active duty.

But it's also true that as many as 40,000 US troops were sent to Iraq without the best-grade body armor. Frontline troops had the new vests, containing ceramic plates that can stop assault-rifle bullets, while others had only older designs that offered protection mainly against shrapnel and lower-velocity projectiles.

At a House Appropritions subcommittee hearing Sept. 24, 2003, Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, did not dispute the estimate that 40,000 troops were without the newer design, and said the $300 million was needed to buy more of the vests.

Abizaid: Now, I can't answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply. But I can tell you that by November, every soldier that's serving in Iraq will have one. It's very important.

* campaign aides say their ad is in part a reaction to Kerry's recent criticisms of * on that very point. In a radio address on March 7, for example, Kerry said * sent troops "into harm's way without enough firepower and support," and the the Pentagon had only recently started making armored door kits to protect Humvee occupants from roadside am*es.

Kerry: Even more shocking, tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor

In a telephone conference call with reporters March 16, a * aide said Kerry is living in a "parallel universe," criticizing the President for failing to provide enough body armor while voting against a bill to provide money to buy more.

On March 15 Kerry gave his most recent explanation of his vote on the $87-billion measure, in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters:

Kerry: And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.

For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed.

*-Cheney '04 Ad

"Troops-Fog"

*: I’m George W. * and I approve this message.

Announcer: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October, 2002 for military action in Iraq , he later voted against funding our soldiers.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Body armor and higher combat pay for troops?

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Better health care for reservists?

Announcer: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?

Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

Announcer: Wrong on defense.


March 18 Update:

New Version of Ad Goes National

On March 18 the * campaign released a new version of the ad and said they would run it nationally on network cable television, as well as in West Virginia.

The updated version of the ad was nearly identical in wording but added near the end footage of Kerry giving an awkward but widely quoted explanation of his position:

Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?

Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing *'s tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.

The * campaign named the revised ad "Troops-Fog" and issued a news release saying Kerry's stance is part of a pattern of equivocation. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan called the ad misleading and said: "John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on *’s failed Iraq policy."

******************************

*’s campaign chairman Marc Racicot on Feb. 22 accused Kerry of "voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror" and says Kerry was for "canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser." Another * campaign spokesman said Kerry has a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems" (a clear impossibility since Kerry has been in office less than 20 years.)

It's true Kerry expressed opposition to those weapons 20 years ago as a candidate, voted against Pentagon budgets several times as a senator in the early and mid-1990's, and proposed cuts in military and intelligence budgets as deficit-reduction measures as recently as 1996.

But Kerry's votes against specific military hardware were mostly against strategic nuclear weapons including the B-2 bomber, Trident missile and anti-missile items, not against conventional equipment such as tanks. And Kerry has a point when he says "I've voted for some of the largest defense and intelligence budgets in our history," which is correct. He's voted for military spending bills regularly since 1997.

Twenty years ago, as a candidate battling another liberal for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Massachusetts Kerry advocated terminating many strategic and tactical weapons.

In this 1984 campaign memo (which a Kerry spokesman confirms is genuine) the candidate called for cutting Ronald Reagan’s military budget by between $45 billion and $53 billion through (among other things) cancellation of the MX missile, B-1 bomber, anti-satellite weapons, and the "Star Wars" anti-missile program, along with several conventional weapons that have become mainstays of the present-day military, including the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the F-14 and F-15 fighters. He also called for a 50% reduction in the Tomahawk cruise missile.

And during the same campaign, according to the Boston Globe, Kerry also advocated reductions in the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the F-16 jet.

"No Excuse"

"There's no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction, and as your senator I will never do so," Kerry said in the memo.

In 1985, Kerry's first speech in the Senate was against President Reagan's proposal to build MX ballistic missiles, and also in 1985 he introduced a "nuclear freeze" resolution calling on the President to negotiate a "verifiable" halt to testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons. It attracted no co-sponsors and died without a hearing in committee.

Throughout Kerry's early Senate years he often voted against specific weapons systems and sometimes against the entire Pentagon budget. He voted repeatedly to cancel the B-2 Stealth bomber, for example, in 1989 , 1991 (twice ) and 1992 . He voted against the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile in 1994 and 1995. And he voted repeatedly to cut funds for the Strategic Defense Initiative (ballistic missile defense) in 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1995, and 1996. He also voted for across-the-board cuts in the military budget in 1991 and 1992, as Congress struggled to deal with mounting federal deficits and the former Soviet Union disintegrated.

Republicans shouldn't make too much of these votes, however, since President *'s own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

Voting Against M-1 Tanks? Not Really.

And Republicans go too far when they claim that Kerry voted against such mainstay weapons of today's military as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot missile. (See this Republican National Committee "fact sheet," for example.) These claims are misleading because they rest on Kerry's votes against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996. But none of those were votes against specific weapons systems. Kerry's critics might just as well say he was voting to fire the entire Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

It is true as Republicans say that in 1993 (Bill Clinton's first year as President) Kerry specifically proposed cutting the size of the military, including reductions in numbers of submarines, jet fighters and soldiers. But what Republicans fail to mention is that it was a very broad measure aimed at cutting federal spending by $85 billion at a time when the federal deficit was roughly $300 billion. Kerry's measure -- the "Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 1993" -- targeted not only military spending but also would have eliminated federal subsidies for cotton, wool and mohair production, eliminated the superconducting super collider and the space station, and raised fees for grazing or mining on public land. That bill died without a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.

It is also true that Kerry proposed in 1995 another measure that -- among other things -- would have cut the US intelligence budget by $300 million per year for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Republicans fail to mention, however, that this was another broad, deficit-reduction measure that didn't just target military spending. When he introduced it Sept. 29, 1995, Kerry said it would cut $90 billion in federal spending, of which $10 billion would come from defense spending, and $11 billion from terminating the international space station program.

Republicans also point to a 1996 bill Kerry introduced to cut $6.5 billion from defense spending. What Kerry's critics fail to mention is that Kerry proposed to use the money to hire an additional 100,000 police officers (above the 100,000 President Clinton already was proposing to fund.) Kerry called it the Safer Streets Act of 1996.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, in a telephone conference call with reporters arranged by the * campaign Feb 21, went way over the top when he accused Kerry of "a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems." That's not possible since Kerry's first vote was cast in 1985. It also implies that Kerry has continued to vote for cuts over his entire career, which isn't true.

A "New Kerry?"

Since 1996, the John Kerry who once opposed the Apache helicopter and wanted to cut Tomahawk cruise-missile funds by 50% has evolved into a steady supporter of military budgets. Starting in 1997 Kerry voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well.

Kerry says he's changed. He still defends his opposition to the MX missile and the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative, but concedes that opposing some other weapons was a mistake.

This was not in evidence Feb. 21, when Kerry lashed out at the * campaign's criticism of his voting record. In a letter to President * he said -- wrongly -- "you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam," which is not the case. In fact * spokesmen at the White House, the campaign and the Republican National Committee have gone out of their way repeatedly to distinguish between Kerry's military service, which they call honorable, and his legislative record.

But Kerry was less defensive and more candid in a June, 2003 interview with Boston Globe reporter Brian Mooney. The reporter quoted Kerry as conceding that some of his positions 20 years earlier were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then. . . . I mean, you learn as you go in life."

The Globe quoted Kerry as saying his subsequent Senate voting record on defense has been "pretty responsible."

*******************************

The * campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. * personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal.

It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party. But the proposal * criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.

President * said March 8 at a political fundraiser in Dallas that Kerry's 1995 proposal to cut $1.5 billion over five years was "deeply irresponsible."

His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war.

"Gut" intelligence? It was 1%

It's true that Kerry's 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a "gutting."

It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that's hardly evidence it was "deeply irresponsible" as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds.

In fact, Kerry's proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier.

"Irresponsible?" But Republicans Approved.

Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:

It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.

Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.

And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:

Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'

Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget."

A "pattern?" Well, not exactly

The * campaign in a March 9 document accused Kerry of "a pattern of intelligence cuts." But aside from the 1995 proposal, the only evidence of a "pattern" offered was a 1994 deficit-reduction bill Kerry sponsored (S. 1826) that included a $1 billion a year in cuts to the intelligence budget for 1994-1998.

It is true that some members of Kerry's own party criticized that proposal. Sen. Dennis DeConcini said intelligence funds already had been cut $3.5 billion:

I continue to believe that last year's intelligence cut was as deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-war transition.

And Sen. Daniel Inouye echoed that:

An additional $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters vital to this country.

On Feb 10,1994, Kerry's amendment was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.

But it is also true that even at that time there was growing concern about the how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had. Later in 1994 Congress formed the Aspin Commission to assess the state of the intelligence services. It was bipartisan. Following the death of former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, for whom the panel was named, it was headed by another former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and by Republican former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.

When the 17-member panel completed its report two years later, it said intelligence funding, despite recent cuts, was still 80% higher than it had been in 1980 even after adjustments for inflation. And while the commission did not recommend any more cuts, it acknowledged that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made.

And the commission stopped well short of claiming further cuts would "gut" the intelligence services:

Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security. Indeed, finding such reductions is critical . . . It is clear a more rigorous analysis of the resources budgeted for intelligence is required.

Related News Story:

Brian Williams

Correspondent

NBC News

Updated: 7:33 p.m. ET April 06, 2004NEW YORK - When President *’s ad says, "I'm George W. *, and I approve this message," and the message begins with the White House as the backdrop, it’s a home-field advantage John Kerry cannot match.


And then the gloves come off as the ad, entitled "Troubling," opens with this:

"John Kerry's record on the economy: Troubling."

The ad continues: "He opposed tax relief for married couples 22 times. Opposed increasing the child tax credit 18 times. He even supported increasing taxes on Social Security benefits."

Longtime journalist Brooks Jackson runs the Web site Factcheck.org. NBC News asked him to do exactly that with the * campaign spots. If all that is true, then what's Kerry doing running for office?

Not so fast

"What's troubling, of course, is that it's not all true," says Jackson. "What's troubling to me are ads like this one.... It tends to be shades of gray, twisting things, subjective use of facts — selective use of facts."

Jackson cites another example from that same ad, which says, "Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times."

"If you look carefully, what they have done, go back and count not just votes that Kerry cast that might have raised taxes above current levels," he says. "They counted votes that would have kept them at current levels, and they count votes that would have cut taxes. That number is so bogus."

"What they are talking about here is votes he cast that would have made taxes higher than they might have been .. if some other amendment had passed."

In other words, procedural trickery that included some votes counted twice.

The 50-cent gas tax

Another * ad, entitled "Wacky," takes an almost slapstick shot at Kerry, saying: "Some people have wacky ideas like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry. He supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax."

"Here's what's wrong with that ad," says Jackson. "One quote, two newspaper clips a decade ago, never voted for it, never sponsored a bill, doesn’t support it now and they would have you believe he still favors that."

Going back to the $87 Billion Kerry voted for before he voted against it…

He was not against the spending, he only wanted to pay for it responsibly. Kerry and others proposed that the cost be paid by asking the very wealthy to give back a small portion of the 690 Billion tax cut that President * gave them. The President wanted to borrow the money and have our children pay it back. He was wrong to do that, fiscally and morally. Kerry simply voted against mortgaging our nation's future NOT against giving our military what they need to be safe and to do battle. The $87 billion spending bill was bad law. There is no congressional oversight of the spending, nor is the White House required to provide an accounting of how the money was spent.

The simple fact is that Kerry voted against one version of the bill. George W. * threatened to veto another version of the bill. If you condemn Kerry, you must also condemn *.

Also I know you must have heard the rhetoric about Kerry’s flip-flopping on issues. Mary, on one side we have an administration that led us into war on false pretenses. * vehemently refused to apologize for accepting the false intelligence and is relentless in trying to convince the public that the intelligence was good, even though it has overwhelmingly been proved to be false. When he was presented with warnings from several different sources, he told them all he must stay the course and follow through with it anyway and they’d deal with the outcome later. I will give him this – He stays the course and is determined. But, I’d prefer to have a leader that isn’t afraid to listen to another point of view and admit mistakes and work to correct them rather than trying to masquerade and cover those mistakes up at the expense of our country.

I know that military and veterans issues are very important to you and that you are concerned that John Kerry doesn’t share the same values and concerns. It is troubling to me that you would vote for someone you say you know is corrupt because Kerry isn’t on your side. The reason it is so troubling to me is that I am certain Kerry is on your side and on the side of our nations’ military and veterans. The following excerpts are from his website and news articles.

The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who've worn the uniform of the United States of America. But today, countless veterans are fighting just to receive basic benefits. Twenty percent of reservists and their families lack adequate health care coverage, and as many as 23 percent of America's homeless men are veterans. Over the last three years, attempts to increase funding for reservists' health care have been blocked, and veterans have had to fight attempts to slash imminent danger pay rates and family separation allowances for those serving today.

A decorated veteran himself, John Kerry believes that keeping faith with veterans is about honoring America's promise: if you take care of us and our country, we'll take care of you.

John Kerry and John Edwards will honor those who serve and those who fall in service with deeds, not just words. They will fully fund veterans' health care, end the disabled veterans' tax, fully equip and fairly compensate our troops on active duty, and protect their loved ones with a Military Family Bill of Rights.

John Kerry and John Edwards will ensure that our veterans are honored with the respect of a grateful nation.

The Kerry-Edwards plan to keep faith with America's veterans will:

Improve Veterans' Health Care

Today, nearly one-fifth of American veterans lack full health care coverage, and thousands of disabled veterans are being unfairly taxed on their disabilities. As president, John Kerry will provide mandatory funding of veterans' health care and ensure concurrent receipt to end the Disabled Veterans' Tax.

Improve Veterans' Quality Of Life

Today, America's veterans suffer from high rates of homelessness and a Veterans' Administration (VA) that in too many cases remains unresponsive and too complicated. As president, John Kerry will ensure that veterans have the resources they need to find homes and jobs, while streamlining the VA to make it more responsive to veterans' needs.

Keep Faith With Those Who Serve Today

By enacting a Military Family Bill of Rights, John Kerry and John Edwards will ensure that today's men and women in uniform receive adequate pay and full health care coverage (including access to TRICARE), while ensuring that our military is never overstretched and that our troops are always fully equipped for the missions they face.

********************

In Speech, Kerry Announces Military Family Bill of Rights

March 17, 2004

"Let me say here today, to every soldier and every soldier’s family and to my fellow veterans, the band of brothers who have been with me for so long and to whom I owe so much, I pledge that unlike the time when we fought side by side, I will be a President who does what’s right for our men and women in uniform.

"I make this simple pledge: If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces – on active duty and as veterans. It should be no other way and if I am president, it will be no other way."

"At this decisive time in our history, when we confront ongoing challenges in Afghanistan as well as Iraq – and the mortal challenge of those that would use terror as a weapon and religion as a shield, there is no greater imperative for a President than the Constitution’s command to provide for the common defense," said Kerry of our troops. "If I am President of the United States, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the 21st century American military is the strongest in the world. I will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the War on Terror."

"At the heart of that force must be a fully prepared, fully equipped, fully staffed, state-of-the-art military ready to face any adversary, anywhere. Four years ago, George * said that our troops lacked the support they needed. Four years ago, he promised them: ‘Help is on the way.’ He sent that message to the same military that had been built up in the 1990s and was soon to perform so brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, I say this today: George * can’t have it both ways. He can’t decry the military’s readiness in 2000 and then take credit for its success in 2001, before he even passed his first defense budget. Now, in 2004, our armed forces are more extended than at any time in a generation -- and at this time, they are still waiting for help."

Kerry unveiled a Military Family Bill of Rights to ensure that we take care of the brave men and women of our armed services and the loved ones they leave behind when called to serve. John Kerry believes that military families must be treated with the respect they deserve. As President, The Military Family Bill of Rights will provide our military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training, and the best possible weaponry, armor, and state-of-the-art equipment.

"I will never forget that our true power is measured not only by the strength of our weapons, but by the spirit of our soldiers," said Kerry in his remarks.

"To me, that is not just rhetoric; it is the reality I lived – and it is central to the work of my life. So I come here today to propose a Military Family Bill of Rights – real and specific guarantees – that will keep faith with those who served and the families who share in their sacrifice.

"Our military families have the right to expect real leadership of the armed forces from the Commander-in-Chief. They have a right to competitive pay and quality housing, decent health care and dental care. Quality education for their children. First rate training. The best possible weaponry and state-of-the-art equipment. They have a right to timely deployment information. And they have a right to know that, in the event of tragedy, help will be there to care and provide for their families and for them."

MILITARY FAMILY BILL OF RIGHTS

I. RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY

* Increase The Size Of The Military. The American military was designed to fight with coalition partners. Lacking those partners due to a failed policy of unilateralism, our Army is stressed to the breaking-point. John Kerry will temporarily increase the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops so that we have the force structure for the challenges we face.

* Reinvigorate American diplomacy to better meet the needs of America’s security. Our military has a right to expect that when they go into conflict on a mission of international security they will have maximum support from troops of other nations affected. Because of the * Administration’s disregard for allies and other potential partners, our troops make 82% of the military forces dealing with the insurgency operation in Iraq today, and have suffered 85% of the fatalities. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm; http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/>

II. COMPETITIVE PAY

* Assure Sufficient Imminent Danger Pay And Family Separation Allowances. Military families, particularly when the service member is deployed to a combat zone, are entitled to our full support and full respect. Unlike the * Administration, John Kerry will never attempt to reduce special compensations such as family separation allowance and hazardous duty pay.

III. QUALITY HOUSING

* Bring Up Standards Of All Family Housing Units. Military families should live in housing that is adequate to their needs and meets American standards. Unfortunately, military housing has been grossly inadequate for several decades. John Kerry will accelerate the construction of new military housing by providing incentives for private developers to build new housing on or near military bases and lease it to military families at a rate consistent with their housing allowances.

IV. QUALITY HEALTH AND DENTAL CARE

* Ensure Service Members and Families Receive Adequate Health Care. Military families should have full access to quality health and dental care, whether stationed at home or abroad. John Kerry will fight to make permanent the extension of TRICARE to unemployed or uninsured reservists.

V. QUALITY EDUCATION

* Defend Impact Aid from * Administration Cuts. Military children, along with their parents, sacrifice much in terms of educational and other opportunities by frequently moving to new, different schools. Children of service members deserve educational opportunities equal to the best in our country, and whether at home or abroad, John Kerry will ensure they get the quality education they deserve. The * Administration has proposed cutting the Impact Aid program, which provides funding for our nation’s Department of Defense schools.

VI. FIRST-RATE TRAINING, ARMS, AND EQUIPMENT

* Reimburse Families Forced To Purchase Body Armor. No military family should ever have to bake cakes or wash cars to raise the funds to provide their service member adequate personal equipment such as body armor when on a deployment. The * administration deployed troops to Iraq without the latest body armor. John Kerry will reimburse families that were forced to provide for themselves.

* First-Rate Training And Equipment. No soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will ever go into harm’s way untrained, when the best training is available, and poorly or incompletely equipped when we have the best equipment available. Our service members and families deserve the peace of mind that comes with knowing that all that can be done to ensure a quick and safe return from a combat theater has been done, and John Kerry will ensure military families have that peace of mind.

VII. UP-TO-DATE, ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT DEPLOYMENTS

* Ensure Families Know When Their Loved Ones Leaving and Coming Home. By their very nature, emergency deployments are unpredictable. But routine rotations to sustain on-going operations are reasonably predictable. Our families deserve the best, most current information about the timing and duration of deployments. John Kerry will make every effort to ensure they know that and much more.

VIII. HELP FOR FAMILY MEMBERS AFFECTED BY EXTENDED DEPLOYMENTS

* Penalty-Free Withdrawls from IRA Expenses Associated With Deployments. Our service members and families deserve more consideration and assistance when on operational deployments, and John Kerry will ensure they get that consideration and assistance, including penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for expenses associated with deployments.

* Make Family Separation Allowance Permanent. The * administration tried to cut family separation allowance. John Kerry would make it permanent and index it to inflation.

IX. ASSISTANCE WHEN A SERVICE MEMBER HAS BEEN KILLED

* Increase The Death Gratuity. When a service member is injured or killed in the line of duty, military families deserve full, complete, and timely notification. No other moment in life will ever carry such pain, and the nation owes surviving family its highest respect and best efforts. Kerry will work to have a $250,000 gratuity added to the Service Members Group Life Insurance if a service member is killed in a combat zone.

* One Year of Military Housing for Families of Deceased Service Members. Our service members and families deserve full assistance that matches their sacrifice. Kerry will extend from 180 days to one year the amount of time that a family of a service member killed in action can live in military housing so that children can finish the school year and families can plan for the future.

X. RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AFTER LEAVING THE MILITARY

* After military service ends, a new commitment from the nation begins to assist and recognize those who have served, and who often bear the wounds of battle. All agencies of government that can help our veterans must help our veterans with service that is complete and compassionate

* John Kerry will fight for quality access to healthcare for all military retirees, provide for full concurrent receipt; and reverse the * administration’s Department of Labor inclusion of military training in the criteria for employees who may be exempted from over-time pay.

************************

May 28, 2004

Kerry Pledges to Keep Commitment to Those Who Serve

For Immediate Release

Green Bay, WI - On the second day of an 11-day national security focus, Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry Friday said that he will build an America that is stronger at home and respected in the world by ensuring that members of America’s military are always prepared and protected.

"Over this Memorial Day weekend, our nation will come together to honor the bravery and sacrifice of past generations of Americans," Kerry said. "The days ahead will be filled with the pride of families, the sadness of loss and a renewed commitment to service. But that is not enough. We must pay tribute to their service by keeping our commitment to the men and women who wear our uniform today."

Kerry called for a new national security policy based on four new imperatives: build and lead a new era of alliances; modernize the world’s most powerful military; make full use of our diplomatic, intelligence and economic power; and free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

In a town hall meeting with veterans and military families in Green Bay today, Kerry focused on the second, saying that as commander-in-chief he will adapt and equip the military to fight the missions of today and make sure our troops and their families are taken care of at home.

Reminding his audience that the wars we fight and the enemies we face are now different, Kerry stressed the need for a force that can meet the challenges confronting our country.

"I will modernize our military to match its new missions," Kerry said. "We must get the most out of new technologies. We must reform training and update the way we structure our armed forces -- for example, with special forces designed to strike terrorists in their sanctuaries, and with national guard and reserve units retooled to meet the requirements of homeland defense."

To accomplish this, Kerry promised to ensure that the men and women of the US military are the best-led, best-equipped and most respected fighting force in the world, and as commander-in-chief, he said he will never send troops into harm’s way without enough troops for the task or without a plan to win the peace. He also emphasized that not every problem should be viewed through the military lens and stressed that as President, he will deploy all the power – economic, intelligence and our values and ideas – in America’s arsenal to meet our challenges.

But to be strong at home, Kerry also emphasized that we need to keep America’s promise to the men and women of the armed forces and their families. During the past three and a half years, the men and women of our military have been called on to sacrifice at rates unseen in over a generation. Yet at the same time, they have endured attempted cuts in pay, equipment shortages, less health care and longer, unpredictable deployments.

"When I returned home from Vietnam, I joined my fellow veterans in vowing never to abandon any veterans of America’s wars, and my commitment to veterans and members of our military has never wavered and never will," Kerry said. "We can build a stronger America by making sure we honor all our commitments to veterans and military families, and together we will."

As President, Kerry said he will never break America’s commitment to those who serve. His comprehensive plan – a Military Family Bill of Rights – will ensure that service members and military families are treated fairly. His plan will make sure troops do not face pay cuts and give them the protections they need on the battlefield and at home, like body-armor and other equipment, health care for all military reservist, assistance for families affected by extended deployments, support for small business and reservists and up-to-date and accurate information about deployments.

"I make this simple pledge: if I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces - on active duty and as veterans," Kerry said. "It should be no other way and if I am President, it will be no other way."

Kerry’s town hall meeting followed a breakfast in which he met and talked with ten reservists and National Guardsmen who have just returned from military service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry listened to them share their experiences and thanked them for their service.

Here is an example of *’s commitment to our troops:

Another * Failure to Keep Faith With America’s Military

Why Won’t Jeb * Pressure The President To Deliver Bulletproof Vests To Soldiers In Iraq?

In response to increasing violence in Iraq and President *’s failure to properly protect American soldiers in harm’s way, Marion County, Florida Sheriff Ed Dean sent out a statewide request for donations of bulletproof vests to help one of his deputies, 1st Sgt. Fred Chisholm, the senior enlisted soldier in the 351st Military Police Company from Ocala, Florida. Forty law enforcement agencies from across the state of Florida responded with donations of more than 1,300 vests. Yet, the vests remain in Ocala, Florida instead of Iraq because the Pentagon has refused to approve their delivery. Like President *, who sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without body armor, Governor Jeb * has done nothing to intervene in this case and ensure the safety of Florida soldiers serving two hours south of Baghdad.

Vests Help Protect Interior of Humvees Against Roadside Attacks. "Chisholm wanted the vests so his soldiers could pad the interior of their thin-skinned Humvees to protect against homemade roadside bombs and other weapons."

Vests Would Protect Against Improvised Explosive Devices. ""This would greatly help the survival rate of my troops," Chisholm wrote. "There are always IEDs (improvised explosive devices) striking our vehicles…to minimize any troop injuries, we would pad our vehicles before going out on mission.""

Forty Law Enforcement Agencies Responded With Donations. "Forty law-enforcement agencies around Florida contributed to the effort, which kicked off earlier this month after one of Dean's own deputies - 1st Sgt. Fred Chisholm, the 351st's senior enlisted soldier - asked for help. Chisholm did so out of frustration with the Army's slow-moving supply chain."

Donated Bulletproof Vests Sit in Military Headquarters Instead of Protecting American Soldiers in Iraq. "More than 1,300 bulletproof vests collected by the Marion County Sheriff's Office for shipment to the Ocala-based 351st Military Police Company remain stored in the unit's Ocala headquarters -10 days after they were delivered for shipment to Iraq. How long the body armor continues to sit there remains to be seen."

Bureaucratic Red Tape Prevents Prompt Delivery. "The vests are a gift and authorization to accept them comes from the Pentagon. But the request has only made it as far as Atlanta, where it arrived on Thursday… From there it will be forwarded to the Pentagon."

Instead of Acting to Deliver the Vests, Military Leaders Attacked Chisholm. "When 1st Sgt. Fred Chisholm sent an email to Marion County Sheriff Ed Dean asking for help outfitting his troops’ vehicles with protective body armor, Chisholm was barraged with "harassment" by the "stateside chain of command."

Republican Lawmakers Lashed Out At Sheriff. "U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, sent a statement to the Star-Banner claiming Dean misrepresented the plight of the 351st Military Police Company and "included spurious accusations concerning congressional support for these troops.""

Rumsfeld Unresponsive to Requests to Intervene. "Dean immediately faxed a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday to intervene if military leaders come down on Chisholm. "I am writing to you to formally request that no retaliatory action be taken ... for Sergeant Chisholm's initiative in trying to secure used ballistic vests to line the doors and floors of Humvees used in his unit in Iraq," Dean wrote to Rumsfeld."

Not The First Time This Has Happened…

Lakeland, Florida Police Department Donated Body Armor to Iraqi Troops. "Some U.S. troops on their way to Iraq are going to receive used police vests to attach to their convoy vehicles for added protection, courtesy of the Lakeland Police Department. This month, the department sent 26 ballistic vests to New York, where the used body armor will be sent to the 701st Main Support Battalion of the Army's 1st Infantry Division. The vests will be attached to "soft sided" Humvees, which lack some of the protection of the hard-sided vehicles."

One-Quarter of American Troops In Iraq Fought Without Body Armor. * sent American troops into combat without protective body armor. "Nearly one-quarter of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq still have not been issued a new type of ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles…Congress approved $310 million in April to buy 300,000 more of the bulletproof vests, with 30,000 destined to complete outfitting of the troops in Iraq. Of that money, however, only about $75 million has reached the Army office responsible for overseeing the vests' manufacture and distribution, said David Nelson, an official in that office…Several soldiers serving in both countries have credited the Interceptor vests with saving their lives.."

Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, here is a dated description of the news on reports that had come out last year at the very beginning followed by excerpts from a very decisive report.

April 7: The Washington Post relays the Pentagon announcement that it has found the "smoking gun"—the 101st Airborne has located a large cache of chemical weapon-laden missiles southwest of Baghdad; buried "bioweapons labs" are also reported found.

April 10: U.S. military commanders announce they have secured the Tuwaitha nuclear facility.

April 11: U.S. military commanders reveal that before April 10, Tuwaitha, a site known to contain various radioactive materials, was left unguarded for days. During that time Iraqi civilians looted the facility, almost certainly carrying away contaminated materials.

April 12: The Guardian reports that the U.S. and British governments have rejected the idea that experienced U.N. weapon inspectors should return to Iraq. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Saddam Hussein’s science adviser, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi has surrendered, but insists Iraq had no WMD.

April 13: The Washington Post reports that the "smoking gun" chemical weapon found on April 7 is some sort of pesticide, probably used to combat mosquitos; as for the April 7 report that chemical weapons missiles had been found, the Pentagon "denies any knowledge of this alleged discovery."

April 15: CNN reports that buried bioweapons labs turn out to be crates of new, unused laboratory equipment (test tubes and the like).

April 20: The Washington Post says the Pentagon intends to form a 1,000-man "Iraq Survey Group" to hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Britain’s Independent sums up what has been discovered about Iraqi WMD so far: The U.S. intelligence report that the nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha had been rebuilt was a "sham"; a claim that Iraq had bought uranium in Niger was based on falsified documents; and the aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were not for gas centrifuges to produce weapon-grade uranium. The United States claimed that Iraq was expanding its chemical facilities, but in reality the chemical site at Al Qaqaa was bombed during the first Gulf War, and its chemical weapons were then removed and destroyed by the United Nations. As for the pre-war claim that Iraq was building a dangerous unmanned aerial vehicle for the purpose of spraying bioweapons into the atmosphere, a single dismantled drone found by U.N. inspectors was not reported because it was not a prohibited item. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claim at the United Nations in February, that Iraq had weaponized ricin, was misleading, to say the least. The truth, surely known to U.S. intelligence, was that Iraq conducted a single test in November 1990, which failed, after which the ricin project was abandoned. Similarly, no evidence to date supports Powell’s other claims— that Iraq engaged in research on smallpox, or that it had any VX, mustard gas, botulin, or anthrax.

April 21: Questions are raised about how seriously the U.S. government believed its own claims about WMD, considering that, as the New York Times reports, weapons search teams do not have adequate transport and are having to rely on borrowed helicopters. On the same day, in the same paper, reporter Judith Miller declares that an unnamed Iraqi scientist has identified an unnamed site where, he says, I

[nini]

1. OMG!! I love you!!

I'm going to send this link to everyone I know.


THANKS for putting all of this together!!!!!

[Aunt Anti-bush]

4. I just realized it didn't all fit, so I put the rest down below.

Thanks for your feedback. I think I am going to use this on my rethug brother, too.

[nini]

6. excellent.. if he has a brain he'll at least stop and think

it's all the arguements (and more) I have used - it's great to have them all in one place.

thanks again.

[sandnsea]

2. WOW!!

Amazing! I know just the dimwit that this is going to go to!!

[Aunt Anti-bush]

5. Thanks. I put the rest down below

because it didn't all fit and I hadn't realized it cut off half way.

[Aunt Anti-bush]

3. Part 2 (the email didn't all fit...)

April 21: Questions are raised about how seriously the U.S. government believed its own claims about WMD, considering that, as the New York Times reports, weapons search teams do not have adequate transport and are having to rely on borrowed helicopters. On the same day, in the same paper, reporter Judith Miller declares that an unnamed Iraqi scientist has identified an unnamed site where, he says, Iraq destroyed unnamed chemical and biological weapons before the war. Miller calls this the "most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons."

April 24: The Washington Post reports that the reason U.S. forces waited three weeks after reaching Tuwaitha before inspecting it was due to an internal U.S. government dispute about who would be in charge. The BBC quotes the editor of Jane’s Intelligence Digest, Alex Standish, who says reports of Iraq’s WMD were "politically driven."

April 25: President George W. * says WMD may not ever be found in Iraq.

April 27: New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says it doesn’t matter if no WMD are found. On the other hand, Raymond Whitaker, writing in the Independent, says the road to war was paved with lies and that intelligence agencies were at the mercy of political appointees who distorted intelligence reports to fan the flames. The story about the purchase of uranium from Niger, based on "crude forgeries," had been known to be false for more than a year. As for Scud missiles, not only were none fired, none were found. The Blair government plagiarized outdated graduate student papers and called them a dossier on Iraqi weapons. Other questionable information came from an exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which was paid to "come up with" claims. It’s odd, Whitaker concludes, that if U.S. and British authorities were so concerned about finding WMD that within a few days they diverted some of the search teams to other tasks. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that David Kay, a pre-war supporter of the administration’s position, says of the U.S. WMD search: "My impression is this has been a very low priority so far, and they’ve put very little effort into it."

April 28: Associated Press reports that some 55-gallon drums previously found in northern Iraq and described by U.S. military personnel as containing "blister agent" contain rocket fuel.

April 29: Surrendered scientist Nassir Hindawi tells CNN he was the only person in Iraq smart enough to make powdered anthrax (about which, he adds, he kept quiet). Hindawi describes Rihab Taha, Iraq’s famous "Dr. Germ," as a former student of his who lacked practical abilities. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is described by Independent correspondent Ben Russell as "hinting" that WMD may never be found, although Straw continues to insist that Iraq "had them recently."

May 1: President * lands on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declares an end to major combat operations in Iraq. On the same day, but reported in the May 17 Washington Post, U.S. special weapons hunters break down the doors of "Special Security Organization Al Hayat." The padlocked innermost storage room is found to be filled with vacuum cleaners.

May 7: The Associated Press reports that Lt. Gen. William Wallace of the army’s Fifth Corps says there is "plenty of documentary evidence" of WMD coming from "lower-tier Iraqis." Wallace offers no examples.

May 9: The Associated Press reports that Col. Richard McPhee says his teams have found no chemical or biological weapons so far, and that they might never be found, but he thinks they will find an "infrastructure." Or, as Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence says, a program for WMD will be found, just no WMD. "How it was configured and how they intended to use it" is the problem, according to Cambone.

May 11: The Los Angeles Times reports that before the war U.N. teams tracked down what U.S. intelligence had told them were "decontamination trucks" only to find they were fire trucks. Other information provided to U.N. inspectors was also less than helpful: "Sometimes it was amazingly specific. You know, ‘Go into the basement, there’s a door marked 4, go in there, then there’s a long corridor, then you’ll find a room filled with equipment.’ Except there never was."

May 11: The Washington Post reports that the group directing the search for WMD, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, is planning to leave Iraq.

May 13: The Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson calls pre-war information "faith-based intelligence." But Kenneth Timmerman, writing in Insight magazine, says that only liberals care whether Iraq actually had WMD.

May 13: The New York Times reports that "suspicious trailers," which could be mobile bioweapons labs have been found—but they contain no biological materials.

May 17: The Washington Post reports that White House communication director Dan Bartlett believes there is proof that Iraq had a WMD program because "the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that confirmed it."

May 22: Peter Jennings, introducing a story on ABC-TV’s nightly news, summed up the record. "U.S. intelligence officials say they have concluded that the two tractor-trailers, which they found in northern Iraq during the war, are laboratories for making biological weapons. But they have found absolutely no trace of biological agents in them. Nine weeks after the war began, there is no tangible evidence of any biological or chemical weapons in Iraq at all."

© 2003 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Intelligence Failures

by Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Mathews and George Perkovich

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

As background for the Senate Intelligence Committee's new report, we present below excerpts from the January 2004 Carnegie report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications. The report compared the intelligence assessments on Iraq with the UN inspectors' findings and what is now known. Why were the intelligence assessments so flawed? Were they based on faulty collection or analysis, undue politicization, or other factors? What steps could be taken to prevent a repetition?

These questions can only be answered after a detailed review of the complete classified record. From the currently available material, it appears that two distinct periods will emerge-before 2002, and from then until the outbreak of the war.

In the earlier period, the intelligence community appears to have had a generally accurate picture of the nuclear and missile programs but to have overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Access to and within Iraq was, of course, limited. Other possible sources of error suggest a failure to track the degradation of what was known to have been in Iraq after the 1991 war, including quantities of weapons and agent and their lethality. These errors may have been due to an incorrect extrapolation that production and capabilities would continue to grow regardless of inspections and sanctions, and/or to the assumption that anything for which there was not absolute proof of destruction remained and remained active. It is also possible that views of Saddam Hussein's character were allowed to drive technical assessments.

In the second period, the shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 NIE suggests, but does not prove, that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002. Although such situations are not unusual, in this case, the pressure appears to have been unusually intense. This is indicated by the Vice President's repeated visits to CIA headquarters and demands by officials for access to the raw intelligence from which analysts were working. Also notable is the unusual speed with which the NIE was written and the high number of dissents in what is designed to be a consensus document. Finally, there is the fact that political appointees in the Department of Defense set up their own intelligence operation reportedly out of dissatisfaction with the caveated judgments being reached by intelligence professionals. Although some of those who were involved have claimed that analysts did not feel pressured, it strains credulity to believe that together these five aspects of the process did not create an environment in which individuals and agencies felt pressured to reach more threatening judgments of Saddam Hussein's weapon programs than many analysts felt were warranted.

Mary, I have only covered a tiny amount of what is really going on here. You are certainly intelligent enough to check the facts and make a choice based on the facts. I am only concerned that you’re only getting one side of them so I wanted to address the rest. There are so many more things I’ve found out through my research that absolutely scares the living shit out of me. Mind you, I’ve heard rumors, too, but I discount ANYTHING that I cannot back up with facts.

I am concerned that the * administration is working overtime on a draft which will include females. You are one tough cookie, but honestly I could NEVER have survived in the military. I cannot imagine a time when girls are forced to go to war. It is bad enough that our young men may be sent against their will, but females? Again, check it out or if you would like further verification I can supply it. The draft is slated to begin in 2005 should * be re-elected.

Also you mentioned that Clinton had made a mistake when he pulled our troops out and ended the first Iraq War, Desert Storm. I double-checked just in case memory was failing me. In April 1991, Operation Desert Storm ended with a cease-fire and UNSCR 687(Concerning the Restoration of Peace and Security in Iraq and Kuwait) and we were welcoming Desert Storm troops home in March 1991. Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. I believe we did have some troops that remained through Clinton’s innauguration, but they were simply there to assist UN inspectors and were under the leadership of the UN at that time.

You told me you were pretty sure that the same time Saddam was found you read something on the Army’s website about some cyanide shells or other wmd found. I searched the Army’s website for WMD, wmd found, weapons of mass destruction, cyanide and even sarin. Nothing at all existed on www.army.mil concerning any of those subjects around that time. In fact, the only thing I found was a more recent article discussing how soldiers are still seeking the wmd. Plus, keep in mind only a couple of months ago, * made jokes about the fact that none had been found during a press event. And the administration is still making comments about the fact that one day the wmd will be found. I am certain our troops have found old WMD, according to a weapons inspector I recently saw on an interview that I kept on the computer here. He said that since this war started they have found WMD and tried to assert them as THE WMDs that we’ve been searching for. However, they are from at least 12 years ago and older. He asserts that they were probably left there during the time when Saddam was getting rid of what he had then. Or perhaps he was even saving them, but they have a shelf life of 2 months. The inspector said that if you drink the sarin gas cartridges you probably wouldn’t live, but as an actual weapon they were rendered completely useless years and years ago.

Consider the following scenario. I am searching my son’s room for drugs that I assume he has stashed (God forbid) and I tell you that I am 95% through searching and I haven’t found anything. I tell you that he did have some 10 years ago, but I am certain that he destroyed 90% of it in front of me and promised he’d gotten rid of the rest. The unnaccounted 10% is so old that if he tried to use it there would be no effect anyway. I tell you I need a couple more months to finish searching his room. Would you think it was very urgent to allow me to finish my search or would you take me out and start searching on your own without any drug-finding expertise? You would if there were billions of dollars in it for you.

Silly comparison, I know. But that is what has happened here. And an awful lot of people are concerned and worried about where our country is headed. I still haven’t made up my mind 100% on Kerry but I have made up my mind on *. I refuse to allow this administration to tell me any more lies. Not that they don’t all lie, but these lies have been extraordinary and have cost many Americans their lives.

On April 13, 2003 the former U.S. Secretary of State under President * Sr., Lawrence Engleburger told the BBC: "I would think that he ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy."

If you recall when we spoke I mentioned that the US had tortured children and adolescents at Abu Ghraib. It has been admitted by the administration in an article from BERLIN, July 26 (Xinhuanet) -- The US army admits for the first time to having detained adolescents in its prisons in Iraq, according to a German press report.

The TV magazine "Report Mainz," to be broadcast Monday evening on the ARD network, quoted Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the US troops in Iraq, as saying that they still imprisoned 58 Iraqis in the age of from 14 and 17.

The Iraqi adolescents are held in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and"Camp Bucca" and the length of their average imprisonment is half a year, Johnson said.

Johnson denied that those adolescents were tortured and promised that US authorities would look into accusation of mishandling if it arose.

Keep in mind that early on in the abuse scandal they also denied there was any torture happening and after that was proven with the photos they denied that any administration official had any knowledge until the Taguba report came out, implicating them all.

Finally, here is a small sampling of the people I have found that have decided not to support *. Some of those I mention may seem silly to mention because they aren’t all political experts, but here they are:

The owner of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream

Bill Maher from the T.V. show "Politically Incorrect"

Bonnie Rait

George W. *’s former college professor

Costco

David Kay (former CIA)

Dennis Leary (the comedian)

Donald Trump

Elton John

Everclear (the band)

Florida Firefighters

Franco Harris (Pittsburgh Steeler)

Large group of Historians

Jadakiss (Rap musician)

Jerry Springer

Latino majority

MTV management

National Association of Letter Carriers

Norwegian artists

The NYPD

The NYFD

Outdoorsmen Association

PNAC’s own Fukuyama (Withdrew his support)

Republican Massachusetts Governor Romney

Ex EPA Chief Russell Train (Republican)

Senator Hollings

Senator Max Cleland

Military Families Facing Redeployment

Senator Byrd

Senator McDermott

Blink-182

David Byrne from the Talking Heads

Jimmy Eat World

R.E.M

They Might Be Giants

Alan Cox from Pittsburgh Radio Station The X

Howard Stern

The Beastie Boys

WDVE Radio announcers

Ashley Judd

46 Nobel Prize Winners

ACLU

NAACP

Andy Warhol artists

Anti Defamation League

Australia’s former Prime Minister Keating

Leonardo Dicaprio

Demi Moore

Ashton Kutcher

Desmond Tutu

The Families of Fallen Marines

Federal Judge Guido Calabresi

Federal Workers Union

Martin Sheen

Ellen DeGeneres

David Duchovny

Sharon Stone

Meg Ryan

Jodie Foster

Drew Barrymore

Chris Rock

Jack Black

Matthew Perry

Diane Lane

Marisa Tomei

Eyes Wide Shut star Leelee Sobieski

Adam Sandler

Irish Youth Musicians

Renowned Journalist Helen Thomas

Lee Iaccoca (former * supporter)

Morissey

Michael Berg (father of the first reported beheading victim, Nicholas Berg)

The Reagan Family (all republicans)

The National Lawyers Guild

The National Education Association

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel

Senator Bob Graham

Senator Lindsey O’Graham (republican)

Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas

Southern Baptists Group

Maynard from Tool

Toronto Blue Jays Carlos Delgado

Woody Harrelson

Yale Professor Harold Hongju Koh

Oh, the list goes on and on and I didn’t include a great number of people who’ve come out to say they want * out of the WH because there are so many. If you want I can list them for you in another e-mail, but my fingers are about numb now and if you’ve read all of this it has probably taken you 3 days.

Mary, believe me I would not have taken the time to write all of this to you if I hadn’t thought it was urgent. I have watched and or read the entire 9-11 commission’s hearings. I’ve read most of their newly finished report. I have read the entire Taguba report as well as many of the Senate Armed Services Committees’ transcripts. I’ve watched our congress discussing the issues. I was watching one night during special speeches when democrats were told that they were no longer allowed to discuss VP Cheney and any dishonest practices he may have been involved in with Halliburton. That shit doesn’t happen in a democracy. The CIA director doesn’t just up and quit in the middle of a war right before an election. The President of the United States doesn’t hold a meeting where he insists God is speaking through him and in the same breath refer to all democrats as ‘f-ing’ bastards. The president doesn’t go around pressuring churches to spread the word to vote for him, knowing full well they would lose their tax exempt status just for doing so. The VP doesn’t tell a congressman to go f himself. People don’t get arrested or worse for simply not agreeing with the administration and their policies. But that is what has happened to our democracy. Mary, please if you ever believe anything in your life, believe this. This election is the most crucial election we may ever see. Do your homework and ask questions. Find out what you can about what is going on and who is really in charge in our country. John Kerry may not be what you think a president should be until you get to know him. Go to his website and check out what his views on the issues are. Think about what you want for your future. The current administration doesn’t care about Dan or any of our soldiers. I say that not as an opinion, but from gathering information and even statements that they’ve made about the men and women serving our country being dispensable. These people made a decision years ago that they were going to go into Iraq and take it for it’s oil and to hell with the lives that may be lost. They’ll profit and we’re not talking small amounts of money.

Mary, please go to this link: http://www.tbtmradio.com/geeklog/public_html/search.php?query=flash+symbolman&keyType=all&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search

Click on Flash Animation: Army of One and watch some of the other flash movies. See for yourself what is happening to our country and do the right thing in November. Even though I have the views expressed here, I will warn you that there IS a lot of false information out there, too, so check anything you hear out before you believe it.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this lengthy letter. If you have any questions or need me to clear anything up or to provide proof for anything, just let me know and I’d be glad to help out. As you can tell, this is very important to me because I love this country and I want it to be ruled honestly and riteously. I leave you with a speech from my favorite senator:

Remarks by Senator Byrd

April 29, 2004

"Mission Not Accomplished in Iraq"


Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks in the Senate to mark the one-year anniversary of President *'s "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, which occurred on May 1, 2003.

A year ago, the President of the United States harkened back to his days as an aviator for the Texas Air National Guard to deliver a dramatic, made-for-television speech. Eager to experience the thrill of a carrier landing, the President donned a flight suit, strapped into a jet, and rocketed off into the wild blue yonder for a 30-mile journey.

This flight of fancy concluded with the dramatic landing of that speeding plane onto the deck of an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln -- so named for the stoic leader who guided our country through one of its most troubling times.

Such was the scene on May 1, 2003, under the warming rays of the California sun. The President delivered to the sailors on that ship a welcome and long overdue message: he commended the men and women on their outstanding service to our country during the trials of the war in Iraq, and welcomed them back to the United States of America.

While the President delivered those words of appreciation, every television viewer in the country -- and, indeed, the world -- could see in the background a banner with the words "Mission Accomplished" superimposed upon the Stars and Stripes.

In contrast to the simple humility of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, President *'s speech was designed from the outset to be remembered right up until November 2, 2004.

The President announced unequivocally that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," and that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Now, one year later, combat deaths are more than five times that of a year ago when our President celebrated "mission accomplished."

Since that time, Iraq has become a veritable shooting gallery. This April has been the bloodiest month of the entire war, with more than 120 Americans killed. Young lives cut short in a pointless conflict and all the President can say is that it "has been a tough couple of weeks." A tough couple of weeks, indeed.

Plans have obviously gone tragically awry. But the President has, so far, only managed to mutter that we must "stay the course." But what course is there to keep when our ship of state is being tossed like a dinghy in a storm of Middle East politics? If the course is to end in the liberation of Iraq and bring a definitive end to the war against Saddam Hussein, one must conclude, mission not accomplished, Mr. President.

The White House argues time and again that Iraq is the "central front" on the war on terrorism. But instead of keeping murderous al Qaeda terrorists on the run, the invasion of Iraq has stoked the fires of terrorism against the United States and our allies. Najaf is smoldering. Fallujah is burning. And there is no exit is in sight. What has been accomplished, Mr. President?

Al Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed beast, no longer dependent on Osama bin Laden. The Administration has flippantly claimed that it is better to tie down terrorists in Iraq than to battle them in our homeland. Mr. President, with hundreds of thousands of American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, and a worldwide campaign of terrorism gathering steam, who is tying down whom?

Indeed, our attack on Iraq has given Islamic militants a common cause and has fertilized the field for new recruits. The failures by the United States to secure the peace in Iraq has virtually guaranteed al Qaeda a fertile field of new recruits ready to sacrifice their lives to fight the American infidels. These extremists openly call for "jihad", swear allegiance to bin Laden, and refer to the September 11 murderers as the "magnificent 19." According to intelligence sources, hundreds of young Muslims are answering terror recruitment calls with a resounding "yes."

Amidst all this, the American people are asking themselves one central question: Have we been made more safe by the President's war in Iraq? Do we sleep more soundly in our beds now that Saddam Hussein is captured? Or, instead, are we starting to fully comprehend and regret the fury which has been unleashed by the unprovoked attack on Iraq?

Deaths and casualties of Iraqi civilians are in the thousands, but an actual number cannot be obtained. Is it any wonder that Iraqis see us, not as liberators, but as crusaders and conquerors? A growing number of Iraqis see us as we would see foreign troops on the streets of Chicago, New York, Washington, or any small town in America. Surely one can understand the hatred brewing in Iraq when we see the agony of an Iraqi family that has lost a loved one due to an errant bomb or bullet.

One year after President * proclaimed the conclusion of major combat operations in Iraq, is the world any safer from terrorism? Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists of all stripes. The Middle East seethes in deepening violence and the culture of revenge. Our war on terror appears to many as a war against Islam. A one-sided policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict drives both sides away from the peace table, and hundreds of millions more to hatred of our country. No, the world is not safer.

One year after the "mission accomplished" speech, is America safer? We have not secured our homeland from terrifying threats of destruction. This President has sown divisions in our long-standing alliances. He has squandered our treasure in Iraq and put us deep in debt. Our brave soldiers are pinned down in Iraq while our enemies see the invincible American armor as penetrable by the sword of urban guerrilla warfare. No, America is not safer.

One year ago, the President announced an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Yet, our troops are having their deployments extended in Iraq while our lines are stretched thin everywhere else. Billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into Iraq. Seven hundred and twenty-two American lives have been lost. Unknown thousands of Iraqis are dead. Claims of WMD and death-dealing drones are discredited. And bin Laden is still on the loose.

I stand behind no one in supporting our troops through the dangers they face every day. I grieve along with the families that have lost loved ones. The failures of post-war Iraq lay squarely on the * Administration for recklessly sending this country to war. A war that should not have been fought. A war in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Mission accomplished? The mission in Iraq, as laid out by President * and Vice President Cheney, has failed. Even more disturbing, the disdain for international law, and the military bombast of this cocky, reckless Administration have tarnished the beacon of hope and freedom which the United States of America once offered to the world.

How long will America continue to pay the price in blood and treasure of this President's war? How long must the best of our nation's military men and women be taken from their homes to fight this unnecessary war in Iraq? How long must our National Guardsmen be taken from their communities to fight and die in the hot sands in Iraq? How long must the fathers and mothers see their sons and daughters die in a far away land because of President *'s doctrine of preemptive attack? How long must little children across our land go to sleep at night crying for a daddy or mother far away who may never come home?

President * typified the Happy Warrior when he strutted across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln a year ago this coming Saturday. He was in his glory that day. But on this May 1, we will remember the widows and the orphans that have been made by his fateful decision to attack Iraq; we will be aware of the tears that have been shed for his glory.

How long?

I love you and I appreciate any feedback,

Aunt Lori

[iconoclastic cat]

7. Thanks!

Freakin' great!

[Wind Dancer]

8. Wow!

You have compiled a wealth of information. Thank you for posting this, a recruitment tool if I've ever seen one.

:toast:

[Disturbed]

9. Excellent!

The problem with countering al the lies, half lies of the Bush Admin. is that it does take patience and a lot of complex info. These people are real clever in their deciets. In this age of soundbytes it is extremely difficult to fight against blatant propaganda, lies, half lies and mis-info. You have done an excellent job. My only advice would be to edit and attempt to scale back the volume of the info. the best that can be done without losing the vital points.

Thank you for taking your time to gather this and posting it. ;)