SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42224)5/5/2004 12:47:31 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794009
 
I have just given the NYT a good search, and no sign of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" story. Looks like they spiked it. A real travesty. The Washington Post ran this article on page six.

Veterans Group Criticizes Kerry's War Record

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page A06

A group of Vietnam-era Navy veterans yesterday criticized Sen. John F. Kerry's conduct during the war, and called on him to release all of his military and medical records.




The Kerry campaign immediately responded that the recently formed group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was a politically motivated organization with close ties to the Bush administration and prominent Republican contributors.

The exchange was another chapter in the campaign crossfire over Kerry's and President Bush's military service during the Vietnam years. Both men have had to defend their service records, with Bush on the defensive over his absences from his National Guard unit during the war, and Kerry over his antiwar activities following a decorated combat career as the commander of a swift boat in the Mekong Delta.

The Massachusetts senator made his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign ads during the Democratic primaries. It is also part of a new $25 million ad blitz.

In a news conference, the swift boat group -- composed of about 215 former officers and enlisted men who served in Kerry's wartime division -- declared Kerry unfit to be president because of his statements in 1971 alleging that U.S. soldiers committed routine atrocities during the war. Kerry raised the allegations in testimony to a Senate committee investigating the war that year.

The group also raised questions about Kerry's service record, for which he was awarded three Purple Hearts, and Bronze and Silver stars for valor. In particular, the group's founder and co-chairman, Texas lawyer John O'Neill, alleged in an interview that Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for a wound that was minor and self-inflicted.

"I have very serious questions based on talking to people who were involved in those incidents," said O'Neill, a former naval officer who has been a longtime Kerry critic. Calling Kerry's wound "trivial and insignificant," he said that it may have been the result of a fragment from an M-79 grenade Kerry launched at close quarters. "It was fraudulently reported [by Kerry] and used as the basis for leaving Vietnam early." O'Neill did not serve with Kerry.

Kerry spokesman David Wade denounced the statements as "a false, lying smear campaign against a decorated combat veteran." He added, "This is the ugly face of the Bush attack machine questioning John Kerry's patriotism."

Marc Racicot, chairman of Bush's reelection campaign, said in a statement: "Neither the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign nor the Republican National Committee have coordinated or participated in the planning of this news conference." O'Neill also denied any connection to the Bush camp.

O'Neill started the group earlier this year with help from Dallas communications specialist Merrie Spaeth, a former official in the Reagan White House who was spokeswoman in 2000 for Republicans for Clean Air, a group that spent $2 million on ads attacking Arizona Sen. John McCain's environmental record when he was seeking the GOP nomination against Bush. A director of that group was Sam Wylie, a Dallas investor who has contributed the maximum amounts allowable to the RNC and Bush's campaign.

Spaeth is mentioned on the White House's official Web site as among the "prominent public and private sector leaders who are alumni of the White House Fellows Program from Texas." Spaeth's late husband, H.J. "Tex" Lezar, a law partner of O'Neill's, was an unsuccessful Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Texas the same year Bush won his first term as governor.

O'Neill, a former swift boat commander, debated Kerry about the war in 1971, at the urging of Nixon White House aide Charles Colson. O'Neill said yesterday he had bipartisan support at the time.

The swift boat group includes retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, who was Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam. Despite criticizing Kerry yesterday, Hibbard gave Kerry a glowing evaluation in 1968, calling him "one of the top few" in initiative, cooperation and personal behavior, according to a statement released by Kerry's campaign.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42224)5/5/2004 12:49:14 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794009
 
Safire has the best connection.

May 5, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Comeback Likudnik
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

have not spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon since a majority of half the members of his Likud Party — about 1 percent of Israel's population — expressed their displeasure with his plan to withdraw the most vulnerable settlements from Gaza and the West Bank. Here is what I imagine Arik is thinking.

The loss of the party referendum is a setback. After two landslide election victories, I grew overconfident and misjudged the power of the settlers' "rewarding terrorists" message. But it was a skirmish in a lifelong series of battles, not a personal defeat. I am a survivor.

What are my options?

One: To resign? Never. I have three years to serve before re-election, and my mission is to ensure the security of Israel. Neither the nation nor I will retreat under fire.

Option 2: To disrespect the vote of the settler movement — my people, all brave Jews — who oppose what I promised would be painful compromises? Of course not. Though the party vote was not legally binding, it's sort of politically binding, which brings up——

Option 3: To modify my disengagement plan, giving more weight to my old supporters' objections. Relocate a few, not all, of the Gaza settlements, and a couple in Samaria to establish the principle that holding all the land the Palestinians want would endanger our security. Our old dream is no longer attainable, if we are to have a secure Jewish state; it's time for a new dream.

Option 4: To negotiate that new limited disengagement plan with the 22 members of my cabinet, calming everybody on the far right and proceeding more slowly than I had hoped, though going full speed on the fence. I cannot back away too much on relocating our settlers or my coalition would lose Tomi Lapid's Shinui Party, and he's with me more than some of my own cabinet Likudniks.

About them: my deputy Ehud Olmert has been stalwart — even ahead of me — and would make a fine prime minister someday. Same with Shaul Mofaz at Defense; the Army doesn't want 10,000 troops defending 7,500 settlers in Gaza. But Bibi is Bibi, taking no chances. If the cabinet freezes, which I doubt, I could——

Option 5: Go to the Knesset with a bill calling for a national referendum on limited disengagement. If all the opinion polls mean anything, the great majority of Israelis, left and right, are with me. Some say a binding referendum would take months, and suggest a national private "poll of polls." No; I will lead, not follow.

Option 6: I could listen to Shimon Peres, who wants quick elections. He thinks Labor would pick up seats from Likud — and Shimon, in his 80's, can't wait three long years to run again. But his back-to-Oslo habit is a sure loser; Labor would be smarter taking up Lapid's idea of a unity government now with me.

My choice is Option 4, the modified disengagement plan, with a possibility of taking it to the Knesset later. Just this week, right after the Likud surprise, the Knesset supported me strongly on a vote of confidence about the economy. With all the brouhaha in the world press about last Sunday's crushing defeat, I'm still by far the most popular politician in Israel.

But no more overconfidence. I know that many on the left and in the center tolerate me because "only Arik can bring along the right." So I have to take more care to convince my old comrades in Gaza, Judea and Samaria that building a defensible national perimeter is the road to security now and to peace later.

If I can't bring along a large part of the right — who can? And if not at this critical time — when?

In times of trial, allies show their true colors. President Bush turned American policy away from Ehud Barak's dangerous concessions and toward realism in creating two separate states. His policy letter of last month will be remembered as historic and helpful when Jews and Arabs reach a final agreement someday. Despite criticism from leaders in Europe and the Middle East, Bush lets nobody — including the king of Jordan this week, who requested a letter weakening the U.S. letter to us — drive a wedge between our two democracies.

I'm guessing that's what Sharon thinks as he calms his compatriots and moves ahead. I know it's what I think.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42224)5/5/2004 2:42:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794009
 
The problem with these reports is that they are well written, and sound real. But are they?

Syrian, Saudi Rulers Blame Terror Woes on “the Zionists”

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

May 5, 2004, 12:17 AM (GMT+02:00)


Damascus terrorist attack still kept dark


The teaming up of al Qaeda terrorists with Iraqi guerrillas on a Middle East rampage against American, British, Jordanian, Saudi, Syrian and Israeli targets last month exposes three dangerous developments:

A. Iraq has turned into a hub that radiates terrorist violence far beyond its borders as demonstrated by the April 20 battle in the Hashemi district of Amman, the April 21 bomb blast at Saudi General Intelligence Headquarters in Riyadh and the Saudi security forces’ shootout with armed bands in Jeddah port on April 22. In all these cases, local security forces were confronted with infiltrating Iraqi combatants.

B. Al Qaeda has provided itself with a large reservoir of crack troops from Saddam Hussein’s Special Republican Guards who are willing to fight and lay down their lives for the sake of terrorist action on behalf of al Qaeda. These men are highly trained in urban guerrilla tactics and chemical and biological warfare. Their participation enabled the Islamic fundamentalist organization to attempt a chemical attack in Jordan in the second half of April.

C. The ruling Arab dynasties of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria find themselves in the grip of unprecedented hazards.

Saudi Arabia: Up until April 21, the Saudi monarchy treated Osama bin Laden’s terrorist threat as a thorny domestic problem that was nonetheless manageable. The bombing of its intelligence and counter-terror warfare nerve center in Riyadh was the Saudi-born terrorist’s first assault on a vital organ of the Saudi royal house. The fact that Iraqi combatants executed the attack means that al Qaeda commands both domestic and foreign arms for striking Saudi power centers.

The most recent terrorist attack within the US-Saudi petrochemical industry in the Red Sea port of Yanbu on Saturday, May 1, and murder of five foreign employees – 2 Americans, 2 Britons and an Australian - was just as damaging - if not more so. An exodus of the foreign workers vital to the economy is in spate.

Not everything is known about that attack. Vehicles carrying al Qaeda suicide killers of unknown origin fought Saudi security forces from 06:00 am until about 13:00, almost seven hours. Despite Saudi official denials, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources confirm that one or possibly two of the Western victims’ bodies was dragged through the streets of Yanbu tied to the back of a careening vehicle while the terrorists fired guns out of the windows and yelled Jihad, Jihad! The remains were finally dumped outside the Saudi-British bank.

Whereas the Riyadh blast exposed a large vulnerable hole in the kingdom’s security, the Yanbu attack struck at its bedrock, the Western-Saudi economic partnership.

Jordan: If King Abdullah reckoned that the presence of the American army on his eastern doorstep made his realm safe, al Qaeda’s attempts to pull off mega-terror attacks in April disabused him roughly. The discovery of Iraqi guerrillas planted in the center of his capital all set to unleash poison gas told him that the Iraqi insurgency had slid over into his kingdom far enough to pose a threat to his throne.

Syria: The unforeseen terror attack on the diplomatic quarter of Damascus last Tuesday, April 27, was likewise a spin-off from the Iraqi guerrilla campaign, albeit an ironical one. As first revealed in the last DEBKA-Net-Weekly on April 30, the attack was the work of Syrian fighters returned home from a year in Iraq. Last year they volunteered to help Saddam Hussein’s forces fight off the coalition invasion, then they stayed on to fight the Americans alongside Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah and took part in terrorist action in Baghdad.

Two captured terrorists revealed under questioning that they had been instructed to capture the Canadian embassy and hold its inmates hostage against the release of all Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi jails including Saddam Hussein and all the Islamic extremists in custody in Canada. If their demands were not met, they would have killed the hostages and blown up the building, then killed themselves in order to massacre the Syrian security units surrounding the embassy compound.

This plan was foiled. Casualties were few, the damage slight and the surviving terrorists captured. Nonetheless, this episode underlined a danger even greater than the Riyadh and Amman conspiracies. While Iraqi guerilla-suicides carried out the latter two, for the Damascus assault al Qaeda imported Syrian cells from Iraq for the first time. With al Qaeda’s ranks in Fallujah and Mosul regions packed with Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudis, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Yemenis, Kuwaitis and others, this pattern of planting terrorist cells in their home lands may well be repeated in other countries.

The Syria president Bashar Assad’s predicament is extreme. On the one hand, he is threatened with American economic and diplomatic sanctions for continuing to pump forces into Iraq, including al Qaeda; on the other, his own nationals are creeping home as born-again as terrorists and boomeranging against the very stability of his regime. What can he tell his people? How on earth can he explain how his policy of supporting al Qaeda brought terror into the heart of his capital?

The Syrian propaganda machine offered him a way out of his dilemma: impose a dense blackout on the embarrassing facets of the inquiry, keep al Qaeda out of the public eye, and create a diversion with the help of a well-tried device.

Last week, the government- controlled Syrian media ran with a tale that was eagerly picked up by the Tehran Times alleging “from reliable sources” that Israel’s Mossad had commissioned five Yemeni Jews to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. Disguised as Muslims, they entered the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus to attend a ceremony commemorating the slain Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi. Mashaal’s bodyguards captured them and handed the five over to Syrian security forces. No names were released.

The Saudi de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, was even cruder. In his first reaction to the shock of the Yanbu attack, he pointed an angry finger at “Zionist enemies.”

Saudi foreign minister Saudi al Faisal, asked to comment on this remark Tuesday, May 4, was still more extreme: “It is no secret that extremist Zionist elements which are spread throughout the world are deeply involved in a vicious campaign against the Kingdom,” he said. “What the awful terrorist group is doing in a desperate attempt to destabilize security and national unity feeds into the interests of these extremist Zionist elements.”

Copyright 2000-2004 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42224)5/5/2004 10:05:35 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 794009
 
LOL! This Iraqi bloger thinks BBC is "less evil" than
Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabyea.

Is that an endorsement or what?

:-\



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (42224)5/5/2004 4:23:02 PM
From: Neeka  Respond to of 794009
 
My oh my. It seems some Iraqis don't think murdering thugs deserve much sympathy.

My only concern is for the safety of our soldiers. The thugs want to kill them...and you and me......regardless of what we do or don't do.....they don't care.

M