Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/8/2003 10:56:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Salt of the Earth _____________________ By PAUL KRUGMAN Columnist The New York Times August 8, 2003 Since we're stuck in Iraq indefinitely, we may as well try to learn something. But I suspect that our current leaders won't be receptive to the most important lesson of the land where cities and writing were invented: that manmade environmental damage can destroy a civilization. When archaeologists excavated the cities of ancient Mesopotamia, they were amazed not just by what they found but by where they found it: in the middle of an unpopulated desert. In "Ur of the Chaldees," Leonard Woolley asked: "Why, if Ur was an empire's capital, if Sumer was once a vast granary, has the population dwindled to nothing, the very soil lost its virtue?" The answer — the reason "the very soil lost its virtue" — is that heavy irrigation in a hot, dry climate leads to a gradual accumulation of salt in the soil. Rising salinity first forced the Sumerians to switch from wheat to barley, which can tolerate more salt; by about 1800 B.C. even barley could no longer be grown in southern Iraq, and Sumerian civilization collapsed. Later "salinity crises" took place further north. In the 19th century, when Europeans began to visit Iraq, it probably had a population less than a tenth the size of the one in the age of Gilgamesh. Modern civilization's impact on the environment is, of course, far greater than anything the ancients could manage. We can do more damage in a decade than our ancestors could inflict in centuries. Salinization remains a big problem in today's world, but it is overshadowed by even more serious environmental threats. Moreover, in the past environmental crises were local: agriculture might collapse in Sumer, but in Egypt, where the annual flooding of the Nile replenished the soil, civilization went on. Today, problems like the thinning of the ozone layer and the accumulation of greenhouse gases affect the planet as a whole. On the other hand, today we have the ability to understand environmental threats, and act to contain them. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1989, shows how science and policy can work hand in hand. Research showed that certain chemicals were destroying the ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet radiation, so governments agreed to ban the use of those chemicals, and the ban appears to be succeeding. But would the people now running America have agreed to that protocol? Probably not. In fact, the Bush administration is trying to reinterpret the agreement to avoid phasing out the pesticide methyl bromide. And on other environmental issues — above all, global warming — America's ruling party is pursuing a strategy of denial and deception. Before last year's elections Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, wrote a remarkable memo about how to neutralize public perceptions that the party was anti-environmental. Here's what it said about global warming: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed. There is still an opportunity to challenge the science." And it advised Republicans to play up the appearance of scientific uncertainty. But as a recent article in Salon reminds us, this appearance of uncertainty is "manufactured." Very few independent experts now dispute that manmade global warming is happening, and represents a serious threat. Almost all the skeptics are directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil, coal and auto industries. And before you accuse me of a conspiracy theory, listen to what the other side says. Here's Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma: "Could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it." The point is that when it comes to evidence of danger from emissions — as opposed to, say, Iraqi nukes — the people now running our country won't take yes for an answer. Meanwhile, news reports say, President Bush will spend much of this month buffing his environmental image. No doubt he'll repeatedly be photographed amid scenes of great natural beauty, uttering stirring words about his commitment to conservation. His handlers hope that the images will protect him from awkward questions about his actual polluter-friendly policies and, most important, his refusal to face up to politically inconvenient environmental dangers. So here's the question: will we avoid the fate of past civilizations that destroyed their environments, and hence themselves? And the answer is: not if Mr. Bush can help it. nytimes.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/8/2003 1:21:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

What the US Says Goes ________________________ The Painful Horrors of Political Autism By JOHN CHUCKMAN August 8, 2003 counterpunch.org

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/8/2003 4:09:34 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

5 Foes of Bush Form PAC in Bid to Defeat Him By MICHAEL JANOFSKY The New York Times August 8, 2003 nytimes.com. WASHINGTON — The leaders of five groups with strong ties to Democratic causes announced today that to help offset Republican advantages in organizing and fund-raising, they were joining to form a political action committee aimed at defeating President Bush next year. The leaders said the new committee, America Coming Together, would concentrate on 17 battleground states and emphasize voter education and registration. They also said they had received initial contributions totaling nearly $22 million of the $75 million they expect to have raised by November of next year. Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, which began raising money less than three months ago, has already taken in $34.2 million and expects to reach $170 million. "This is a real demonstration of the coming together of many people in this country who are upset about the extremism of the Republican Party," said one of the committee's founders, Ellen Malcolm, president of the women's fund-raising group Emily's List. The other founders are Steve Rosenthal, president of the labor-backed Partnership for America's Families, who will be the committee's chief executive; Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club; and Cecile Richards and Gina Glantz of America Votes, a new coalition of groups that support Democratic policies. The committee is the latest organizing effort among groups that are not affiliated with any of the nine Democrats running to challenge President Bush but that share a belief that they have no time to spare in the drive to defeat him. Earlier this week, the political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Karen Ackerman, said the labor federation's own nationwide program of education and registration would be its "earliest and biggest" mobilization aimed at driving an administration out of power. Mr. Stern called the current election cycle "an extraordinarily unique moment in history," in which many people feel that "everything they have worked for all their lives is at stake." Political experts say the feelings of Mr. Bush's opponents are so strong that the early organizing efforts against him appear to be the most fervent in decades. "I've never seen anything this early or this intense," said David Loebsack, a professor of political science at Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa. The committee founders said they intended to create grass-roots organizations in states they view as crucial to the election, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, which Al Gore won in 2000, and Ohio and Florida, won by Mr. Bush. Mr. Rosenthal, former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said specific goals would be developed for each state, like increasing the share of the African-American vote in Ohio by two percentage points over the 9 percent share in 2000. The philanthropist George Soros, who has donated $8 million to the new committee, said in a statement that he had been prompted to act by his belief that Mr. Bush was leading the country in a "false and dangerous" direction.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/9/2003 11:38:32 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

'Draft Gore' efforts step up across state By Shir Haberman shaberman@seacoastonline.com PORTSMOUTH - The field of potential Democratic nominees could increase by one shortly. The Draft Gore 2004 Committee officially launched its activities in New Hampshire Thursday, by mailing letters to 147 town party chairmen across the state and announcing a write-in campaign for the former vice president. "We think he is the best man for the job," said Mac Hathaway, who is heading up organizing the Draft Gore efforts in the state. "He was denied a job (in 2000) and we were denied a vote." Hathaway was referring to reports Gore actually won the state of Florida - and, as a result, the presidency - in the 2000 election, although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled George W. Bush the winner. "George W. Bush is president today because the votes counted in Florida’s presidential election did not match the ballots cast by the state’s voters," said Allan Lichtman, who did a statistical analysis of the Florida results for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The results were subsequently published in the Journal of Legal Studies, January 2003. "But the outcome in Florida - which determined the presidency - was not decided by hanging chads, recounts, or intervention by the Supreme Court." Lichtman’s analysis, which pointed to racial overtones in that election, was later supported by University of California professor Anthony Salvanto and Prof. Phil Klinkner of Hamilton College. Studies by the New York Times and Washington Post also supported Lichtman’s conclusions. Gore has repeatedly indicated he would not run for the presidency, but that has not deterred Hathaway or draft organizers in other states from pushing to have the former vice president’s name on the ballot. "We’re sure he’s not running because he believes he doesn’t have the confidence of large donors," the New Hampshire Draft Gore organizer said. "We couldn’t disagree more vehemently." The move to place Gore’s name on the ballot comes in the wake of a recent Franklin Pierce College poll indicating Gore would lead the field of potential Democratic candidates. Twenty-six percent of the 500 likely New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters surveyed between July 20-24, indicated Gore would be their first choice. "We find his poll standings reflect our feelings," Hathaway said. "He comes out in first place whenever he’s put on polls." In addition, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo called on Gore Wednesday to enter the race for the party’s nomination despite a statement from Gore spokesman Michael Feldman that, "The vice president is not going to be a candidate in 2004." Still, Cuomo urged Gore to return to the political fray because the party lacks a single candidate to rally around. "I would like to see him get in," said Cuomo in an interview with WROW-AM radio in Albany, N.Y. "Right now, the Democratic voice is not a single voice. "It is not a chorus. It is a babble," said the former New York governor. Webster’s Dictionary defines "babble," as "to make incoherent sounds, as a baby does, prattle." In a subsequent interview with The Associated Press, Cuomo said Democrats are lacking a "positive agenda, one that the whole party can come around, and a guy like Gore - who has done it, who has it and who can point to it - I think he would be an advantage to the campaign." Hathaway said Draft Gore committees are being established in virtually every state in the country and whether the former vice president decides to formally run is immaterial to these groups. "Should Al Gore decide not to run, however, Draft Gore will seek to secure the nomination for him through a historic people’s draft," Hathaway said. "Let him deny the nomination from the floor of the convention." The committees will attempt to get Gore’s name on state ballots, where that is possible, and to run write-in campaigns in states that do not allow ballot access to draft efforts, such as New Hampshire, Hathaway said. A Web site for the Draft Gore effort has been set up. It is draftgore.com. ______________ seacoastonline.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/9/2003 1:32:21 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Dissenters Face Job Loss, Arrest, Threats But Activists not Stopped by Backlash ________________________________________ Americans Pay Price for Speaking Out GW Bush's America by Kathleen Kenna Published on Saturday, August 9, 2003 by the Toronto Star commondreams.org He's a Vietnam War hero from a proud lineage of warriors who served the United States, so he never expected to be called a traitor. After 39 years in the Marines, including commands in Somalia and Iraq, Gen. Anthony Zinni never imagined he would be tagged "turncoat." The epithets are not from the uniforms but the suits — "senior officers at the Pentagon," the now-retired general says from his home in Williamsburg, Va. "They want to question my patriotism?" he demands testily. To question the Iraq war in the U.S. — and individuals from Main St. merchants to Hollywood stars do — is to be branded un-American. Dissent, once an ideal cherished in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, now invites media attacks, hate Web sites, threats and job loss. After Zinni challenged the administration's rationale for the Iraq war last fall, he lost his job as President George W. Bush's Middle East peace envoy after 18 months. "I've been told I will never be used by the White House again." Across the United States, hundreds of Americans have been arrested for protesting the war. The American Civil Liberties Union has documented more than 300 allegations of wrongful arrest and police brutality from demonstrators at anti-war rallies in Washington and New York. Even the silent, peaceful vigils of Women in Black — held regularly in almost every state — have prompted threats of arrest by American police. Actors and spouses Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon have publicly denounced the backlash against them for their anti-war activism. Robbins said they were called "traitors" and "supporters of Saddam" and their public appearances at a United Way luncheon in Florida and the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., this spring were cancelled in reaction to their anti-war stance. Actor/comedian Janeane Garofalo was stalked and received death threats for opposing the war in high-profile media appearances. MSNBC hosts asked viewers to urge MCI to fire actor and anti-war activist Danny Glover as a spokesperson — the long-distance telephone giant refused to fire him despite the ensuing hate-mail campaign — and one host, former politician Joe Scarborough, urged that anti-war protesters be arrested and charged with sedition. "There's no official blacklisting," says Kate McArdle, executive director of Artists United, a new group of 120 actors devoted to progressive causes. "This is Hollywood, so there are always rumours starting up. Mostly it was producers saying, `We know your position — do you have to be so vocal?'" Internet chat rooms have spouted "tons and tons of vitriol aimed at us," says McArdle, a former network TV executive. "Things like, `Tell me where Tim Robbins lives and I'll go bash out his brains,'" she says. "Or, `If you don't like America, why don't you move to Iraq? Why don't you move to Canada?' "The real backlash comes from the right wing, from America's talk radio guys — when their ratings are down — not from the industry," McArdle says. "We get the `You're either with us or agin' us.'" Comes with the territory, she adds. "We're a nation of dissenters." The Dixie Chicks country pop group won worldwide attention for their anti-Bush comments, which were met with widespread radio station bans against playing their music. Their fans have responded by circulating petitions on the Internet objecting to the "chill" that has tried to silence free speech in the U.S. And opposition to the war has spawned many new songs — some remixes of old Vietnam protest songs — and Web sites devoted to anti-war lyrics. Dozens of fans walked out of a Pearl Jam concert in Denver, Colo., last spring when lead singer Eddie Vedder hoisted a Bush mask on a microphone stand and sang, "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer." But musician Carlos Santana was cheered in Australia — a key U.S. ally in the Iraq war and recent proponent of the "Bush doctrine" of intervention in smaller states' affairs — when he spoke against the war and American foreign policy. ###

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/9/2003 1:48:36 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Mission Accomplished? _________________________ Iraq: 100 Days of 'Peace' On 1 May, President Bush declared war over after six weeks Published on Saturday, August 9, 2003 by the lndependent/UK The US Administrator: Paul Bremer, head of US-led civilian administration "We believe that the attacks against the coalition forces are coming from a number of areas, some of which will be, I think, reduced if we can kill or capture Saddam. Those are attacks that are coming to us from desperados, from the Baathist party, the trained killers of the Fedayeen Saddam and the trained killers of many of the intelligence services which Saddam had. "We believe that the death of his sons and eventual capture or death of Saddam will have a beneficial effect on reducing these attacks. I said at the time of the killing of the two sons that I expected attacks in the short run to increase ... People are coming in to police stations with evidence of where Baathists are, and providing tips that allow us to arrest these people." The Café Owner: Burhan Gharib, Baghdad Many bad things have happened, such as the looting. There is no electricity, the security situation is unstable. If you compare them with Saddam Hussein, the Americans have done nothing for us. They came to Iraq and said, 'We came to protect you' but the only place they protected from the looters was the Ministry of Oil. They can move tanks all over the world but they can't bring a small generator to the city. We feel angry because they do things against our principles. They search our houses and our women. This is a good country, a developed country. The resistance are not Fedayeen Saddam, they are mujahedin, Islamic resistance. They are heroes and we pray to God to save them. We can kick the Americans out. The British Politician: Robin Cook MP I'm astonished that the coalition have put little thought into what to do after the capture of Iraq. The military preparation was meticulous, but the preparations for how to reconstruct the country are being made up as we go along. We were told that it was essential to displace Saddam Hussein because of a "clear and present" danger to the UK, but 100 days later we have still not found one single weapon of mass destruction. It would have been better to let weapons inspectors stay ... The invasion and occupation was a neo-conservative show. They promised it would be easy to win ... the co-operation of the Iraqis. Now that is proving much more difficult and the neo-conservatives are on a retreat in the United States. The US Politician: Al Gore, former Democratic vice-president "Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't happen. As a result, many of our soldiers are paying the highest price. I'm convinced one of the reasons we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq war started is because so many of the impressions the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been wrong. "Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology felt to be more important than basic honesty. "Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush presidency is the latter." The Journalist: Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent of 'The Independent' It wasn't Mr Bush's remark about the end of major military operations that spelt out the lie. It was the banner hanging from the aircraft carrier upon which he made his notorious remarks. Placed there by the White House publicity men, it said simply: "Mission Accomplished'' the ultimate illusionary end to an invasion that was driven by fantasy and right-wing ideology. True, the mass graves have been opened, many of them containing young people whom we betrayed by urging them to fight Saddam in 1991 and then allowing them to be massacred. True, the regime no longer governs. It attacks the US army instead, along with Saddam's old enemies. True, Uday and Qusay are dead but their father still speaks from the underground. A new resistance movement is now cutting down US soldiers every day. Anarchy is widespread. Changing the map of the Middle East is what this illegal invasion was supposed to have achieved, according to the right-wing and pro-Israeli advisers around Donald Rumsfeld. They may be right, but the new map is unlikely to be the one they had planned for. Amid the wilderness of occupation, America may contemplate that its young men are dying for an illusion that will prove as dangerous to Israel as it will to America and the Arab world. Mission accomplished indeed! The Shopkeeper: Sa'id abu Ali, Sadr City The Shia accepted the Americans at first because we were the ones suffering a tragedy under Saddam. This is the second country in the world for oil reserves but Iraqi families are suffering just to get one gas cylinder. Of course people are against [the Americans]. We think they encouraged the looters, because it suits their aims to keep the chaos here so they can stay. I don't believe America cannot solve these problems like gas and electricity. So there is no difference: Saddam was yesterday, America is today. Is this liberation? Most of the injustices still exist. Can you go out in your car after 10pm? If you manage to escape the looters, the Americans will shoot you. If there is occupation, there will be resistance. All Iraqi citizens want the situation stable and safe and an end to the occupation. The Aid Worker: Dominic Nutt, Emergencies Officer for Christian Aid I think the most obvious issue is a lack of security across the country. It is clearly deteriorating. Under the old regime people were too terrified, and law and order was not an issue. Now women and girls are being attacked. Soldiers have two options: shout or shoot, nothing in between. They need an effective police force. The issue of whether we should have gone to war is a very difficult one. It is an ongoing dilemma ... The Iraqis I have dealt with and spoken to welcomed this invasion and the end of Saddam Hussein [but] one questions the principle that right goes with might. The Iraqis are getting frustrated and no one is benefiting. The Iraqi Politician: Dr Adnan Pachachi, acting head of Iraqi Governing Council There are sporadic acts of violence against the Americans. They think that by continuing they are going to force the Americans to get out of Iraq, but they are mistaken. They are delaying the recovery of Iraq. I would like to ask these people: "What do you hope to achieve?" Right from the very beginning, I wanted the UN to have a central role. I said immediately after the collapse of the regime that the secretary general should appoint a special representative to oversee the whole process. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and we have to deal with a situation where a huge US army is in Iraq. One way to deal with this would be not to co-operate, but the Iraqi people are tired after three wars, and don't want to start another one. Casualties 57 US troops, 11 British troops killed since 1 May 35 allied troops died in accidents, 3 possible suicides, 3 drowned 1,000 children injured by unexploded ordnance 15 to 25 civilians shot dead daily in Baghdad 1 UK journalist shot dead Armed forces 150,000 still deployed 6 countries providing forces (US, Britain, Spain, Poland, Denmark, and the Czech republic) Economics $680m rebuilding contracts handed out by Bechtel ($400m to local companies) $3.9bn per month spent by US on occupation £44m to provide new 'Baath-free' textbooks to school pupils £60m spent by International Red Cross on humanitarian aid 1.6m barrels per day of oil being pumped (compared to 2.8m before the war) 1 Arab mobile phone network launched (but shut down by US)< 75 per cent electricity delivery, according to the US Security 1,000 military patrols daily in Baghdad 150 out of 400 courts in operation 18 aid trucks hijacked Health 1 in 12 children suffer malnutrition Culture 150 newspapers started; 1 shut down 3 plays performed © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd commondreams.org

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/9/2003 1:58:28 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Jim Hightower's Explosive New Book: 'Thieves In High Places' FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AUGUST 7, 2003 12:43 PM CONTACT: Jim Hightower Sean Doles (512) 477-5588 x2 commondreams.org AUSTIN, TX - August 7 - Jim Hightower, America¹s most popular populist and all around political sparkplug, is back with 'THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES: They¹ve Stolen Our Country and It¹s Time to Take It Back'. Starting on Monday, August 18, he'll take his uniquely optimistic message of grassroots politics to audiences across the country with a 25-city tour. Click here to view Hightower's upcoming tour schedule, which includes stops in New York, Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Philadelphia and Austin, Texas . In every town, Hightower will be collaborating with local grassroots activist groups to raise awareness on key issues, plus he'll be teaming with TrueMajority and GOTV organizers to channel energy from the crowds into direct political action. "This book is a rallying cry to take our country back from the corporate and political kleptocrats that are squeezing the heart out of our America -- small businesses, middle-class workers, family farmers, and other enterprising, grassroots folks," Hightower says. "My hope is that THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES will awaken readers not only to what we're losing in America, but more importantly, to the phenomenal future we have if we only reassert our democratic values and focus on our grassroots strength," he says. "My basic message is one of hope, that individual citizens can make a difference." For more information on THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES, click here. America is at an historic divide between rulers and rulees and the rulees are restless. Hightower¹s THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES is an epistle to the American people about vision and choices. The question Jim Hightower is asking is: What kind of country do you want America to be? Not only for you, but for your children and theirs? In THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES Hightower takes on the Bushites, the Wobblycrats, and the corporate Kleptocrats, digging up behind-the scenes dirt that the corporate media overlooks -like BushCo's "Friday Night Massacres", what's happened to our food, and the Bush plan for empire. Hightower exposes invasions of privacy, the military budget (and where the money is going), sprawl, deregulation, and how Wal-Mart has reshaped the American business landscape (not for the better) and shows us how a small yet powerful elite in our country have taken control of the small farmers, main street businesses, consumers, the working class and the poor. But it is not all bad news, THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES highlights the grassroots organizations that are making a difference in this country, standing up to corporations, fighting to keep libraries open and taking on Wal-Mart. Drawing on his Rolling Thunder Down-Home Democracy Tour, Hightower continues to tap into the thriving activist networks that are our country¹s grassroots muscle, and his book tells their uplifting stories of retaking control of their communities and how to turn our complaining into positive reforms. _____________________ Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, columnist, and the bestselling author of If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates and There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. More than one hundred thousand people subscribe to his monthly Hightower Lowdown Newsletter, while his radio show is aired on more than one hundred public and commercial radio stations. ### commondreams.org

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3955)	8/9/2003 6:34:42 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

The Worldview of John Kerry ______________________________ His instincts on foreign policy and national security. By William Saletan and Avi Zenilman Slate Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 12:41 PM PT slate.msn.com Slate is running several series of short features explaining who the 2004 presidential candidates are, what they're saying, and where they propose to take the country. The first series summarized their personal and professional backgrounds. The second series analyzed their buzzwords. The third series outlined what each candidate would focus on as president. This series sketches how they would manage America's role in the world. After communism collapsed, American voters lost interest in defense and foreign policy. But those subjects can consume most of a president's time, and 9/11 returned them to the forefront. It's difficult to anticipate which hot spots a candidate would have to deal with as president, but it's possible to get a sense of how he approaches war, diplomacy, trade, and other challenges abroad. This series pieces together a picture of each candidate's instincts based on his words and his record. Today's subject is John Kerry. Soldier's perspective: Kerry is the only 2004 candidate who served in the active military. He earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam. When he returned home, he became a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Corrupt allies: When Kerry entered the Senate in 1985, he joined the Foreign Relations Committee and took charge of the subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism. His investigations of U.S. involvement in Latin America, especially with the Nicaraguan Contras, brought that issue to the forefront. The subcommittee revealed the role of Reagan aide Oliver North in smuggling guns to the Contras. It also uncovered the drug-running of CIA-funded Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Kerry called these connections part of an "illegal war." He angered the political establishment by demanding the testimony of Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party insider whose bank was linked to Noriega's money laundering. The subcommittee also intimated that some CIA operatives working with the Contras had smuggled narcotics into the United States. Ten years later, the CIA acknowledged that this was true. Terrorism and multilateralism: In 1997, Kerry wrote The New War, which analyzed emerging threats posed by international criminal groups such as terrorist organizations and drug cartels. The book outlined multilateral steps to combat international crime. It urged the United States to "regulate electronic money transfers; expand the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction for major crimes committed against a country's citizens overseas; use the CIA and other intelligence services to penetrate global crime organizations; [and] share the seized assets of international criminals with governments that cooperate in fighting global crime." Dogmas and grudges: In 1991, Kerry chaired a bipartisan investigation into the possibility that American POWs were still captive in Vietnam. Despite pressure from POW activists, he convinced the investigative committee, including reluctant Republican senators, that there were no leftover American soldiers in Vietnam. The committee's unanimous agreement set the stage for the 1995 normalization of relations with Vietnam.