Kerry Campaign Response to Misleading Bush Videos ignored by media

[papau]

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002253.html#more

Kerry Campaign Response to Misleading Bush Video

Reporters will be receiving the latest attempt by the Bush-Cheney campaign to distract voters from its four years of failed policies and lack of a positive plan for the future. In an attempt to separate the truth from the fiction in their latest deliberately misleading attack, the Kerry campaign is providing this handy fact sheet to walk you through the distortions contained in their video.


“This video is nothing but a stale old attack from the Bush-Cheney campaign, who can’t for the life of them find anything positive to say. It comes from the same President that told us Saddam Hussein was tied to al Qaeda, that we’d be welcomed as liberators in Iraq, and that we wouldn’t be bearing the costs and casualties alone. Need any more reminders of why this administration’s lost its credibility?” - Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton.




KEY DISTORTIONS CONTAINED IN THE NEW BUSH-CHENY VIDEO:


CLIP-FLOP

Republican’s Creative Editing Distorts of Kerry’s Iraq Position


1. Face the Nation, 9/23/2001


Republican video:


“Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and there is some evidence of their efforts to secure these types of weapons and to test them.


Kerry: Hussein’s actions underscore importance of dealing with terrorists first

BORGER: Do we have any information that chemical and biological attacks were part of this ? We got news this morning about the crop-dusting manuals.
Sen. KERRY: No, at least I don't and not to my knowledge do any of my colleagues. But it is something that we know--for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable.



2. FOX O’Reilly Factor, 12/11/2001


Republican video:


“He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable.”


Kerry: International coalition will be “hammer” on Hussein

O'REILLY: How would you put enough pressure on him to open up inspections again?
KERRY: Well, I'll reinvigorate that process as step number one, and I think the administration is now suddenly starting to move in that direction. I think you have to work our allies sufficiently to pull that component of the effort back together. But the second thing I would do, and I wouldn't hesitate to do it, is back opposition more openly, and do it in a way that begins to put a counterinsurgency in the country itself... The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of synch with the times. He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable.
O'REILLY: But I -- you know, I still don't see the hammer that's going to convince him to open anything up.
KERRY: The hammer, ultimately, will be the evidence that we uncover as we go further down the trail that shows his support for terrorism and begins to build the coalition even more strongly.



3. CNN Larry King Live, 12/14/2001


Republican Video


“I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.”


Kerry: Keep up pressure on terrorism, President shouldn’t proceed to Iraq without link to 9-11

KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places.
KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we.
KING: We should go to Iraq?
KERRY: Well, that -- what do you and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there. But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.



4. MSNBC Hardball, 2/5/2002


Republican Video:


MATTHEWS: Can we get this guy to accept inspections of his weapons of mass destruction, potentially, and get past a possible war with him?

KERRY: Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today.


Kerry: Unilateral invasion of Iraq is not a wise move

MATTHEWS: Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can we get this guy to accept inspections of his weapons of mass destruction, potentially, and get past a possible war with him?
KERRY: Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today...
MATTHEWS: Call his bluff.
KERRY: Well, if it is a bluff. I think you have to begin there, no matter what. Whether Saddam Hussein began that process today or we begin it, you have to put the challenge of the inspections on the line. Why? Because that's the outstanding issue unresolved from the war. That's what he agreed to do, and that's where we left off with Ambassador Butler and his -- his rejecting it. I mean, it's astounding to me, frankly, that our country, as well as the United Nations, have allowed these years to go by with...
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
KERRY: ... with just a simple stonewalling. It's just amazing.
MATTHEWS: Well, good boys don't -- good guys, as you know, don't always win. And for all those years after the Persian Gulf war, President Bush and the world tried to get this guy -- this guy -- having let him off the hook in 1991, to make sure he didn't produce any weapons of mass destruction. The world got bored. The world got weak. They softened up. We stuck to it. Eventually we -- under President Clinton, we pulled back. What assures you now we have the -- the toughness to go in and insist on weapons inspections?
KERRY: September 11. That's it, September 11. I mean, that's changed the dynamic of this country, and I think people's perceptions of what people are willing to do. And when you look at what we've been finding in Afghanistan, when you look at what our intelligence community is laying on the table for us in the Senate and the House to contemplate, there's no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein has to be dealt with. Now, the question is how? I don't think it begins with a military invasion at all. I don't think that even has to be on the table. I believe his regime -- he can be overthrown. I think it can happen internally. I think a lot of people are prepared to help. And I think we have to begin that process.
MATTHEWS: If the president called you in and briefed you, and said, "As the senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm going to tell you something. Tomorrow morning, we're going in big into Baghdad. We're going to drop 50,000 troops in there. We're coming in with heavy armaments. We're going to take that guy out. We're going to remove that government, put in one that -- that we like, like we did in Afghanistan," what would you say?
KERRY: Tomorrow morning?
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
KERRY: If he was going to do it tomorrow morning?
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
KERRY: I'd say, "I think you're making a mistake, Mr. President, just to do it that way. I think we can do it without that kind of risk or loss of life or with the down side that might occur with respect to other relationships we have in the region." I mean, we have Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the crisis with Israel-Palestinian relations at this moment, the peace process, lack thereof and, of course, the very fragile situation for Jordan. That's just not a wise first move.



5. O’Reilly Factor, 5/22/2002


Republican Video


I think we've all reached a judgment that obviously the United States has to protect our national security interests. And we have to do what we think is right.


Kerry: Move ahead effectively with allies on all fronts to be effective against Hussein

O'REILLY: One of the reasons many in Europe are angry with the United States, as we said, is that it is clear President Bush is going to go after Saddam Hussein. And Senator Kerry, who is one of the few people on the Hill who felt that the Gulf War in 1991 could have been handled a little bit differently. He voted against the military action because he wanted more time for Americans to come together about the war and things like that. Senator Kerry joins us now from Washington. The ambassador to Germany is basically saying what most people in Europe are saying, senator. They're afraid. They're afraid that if we go after Saddam Hussein, and all the Arabs get crazy, and the whole thing blows up, that Europe's going to take the brunt of this. I said you can't negotiate with tyrants out of fear. How do you feel about it?
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I agree with you. … I think we've all reached a judgment that obviously the United States has to protect our national security interests. And we have to do what we think is right. I do think the European demonstrations are larger than just Iraq. I think they're concerned about other issues, like global warming. They're concerned about proliferation. They're concerned about -- I mean, there are a whole host of issues. So I think it's a more confused bag than just Iraq, but I think they're wrong on Iraq. I mean, plain and simply, the United States will have to do what we need to do, and our best judgment to protect our national security. And quite frankly, if we do what we need to do, it will also wind up protecting Europe.
O'REILLY: Yes, I mean, that's right. And Europe has lost a lot of credibility. Let's face it. .. we're carrying the ball for these people time and time and time again.
KERRY: I think a lot of Americans feel that way. And I think a lot of Europeans are -- I mean, I've talked to many people over there, who wish the leadership was more willing to stand up on this. I think -- you know, there is a sense that the United States acts unilaterally sometimes. I think there's an envy. One can feel that envy. A lack of consultation. There was even in Kosovo a very significant backlash because of the degree to which the United States had to lead. And even the members of NATO felt somewhat disgruntled by the fact that even within NATO, they weren't able to, in a sense, keep up. So I think there's a certain amount of backlash from all of our success. What we need to do is manage that effectively. And I think some of the other initiatives that we haven't been frankly been very good on, like global warming, are not handling it very effectively.



6. CBS Face the Nation, 9/15/2002


Republican Video:


I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger.


Kerry: Don’t let Iraq distract from focus on al-Qaida and domestic issues

I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat. But I also think--and--and this is another very--you haven't heard this, I think, in the course of the last week, we cannot allow this discussion of Iraq to hide the original purpose of our mobilization, which is Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, and we particularly cannot allow it to shift off of the debate in this country a huge number of unattended issues. Our economy is hurting badly.



7. NBC Meet the Press, 8/31/2003


Republican Video


And the fact is in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the president to do regime change.


Kerry: President broke his word to build a coalition to enforce inspections

MR. RUSSERT: By voting in October the way you did, contrary to what your colleague Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts voted, who said it was in effect giving the president too much authority, yielding our constitutional authority to the Senate to declare war. Robert Byrd, a Democrat, said it was giving the president a blank check. Do you regret giving the president authority way back in October of 2002?
SEN. KERRY: Tim, I have enormous respect for both Senator Kennedy, my friend and my colleague, who I'm proud is supporting me in this race, and Robert Byrd, who's one of the most eloquent, capable people in the Senate. But let me tell you this. I disagree with them on that. The president of the United States had the inherent authority of the presidency. And if he wanted to go, he would have gone and could have gone anyway merely to protect and defend the interests of the United States. And the fact is in the resolution that we passed we did not empower the president to do regime change, we empowered him only with respect to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. Now, the president, as we saw with Bill Clinton, had the power--President Clinton went to Kosovo without any authority from Congress. President Clinton went to Haiti without any authority from Congress. The president has the inherent authority, he had the authority anyway, and I believed, as Joe Biden believed, as Hillary Clinton believed, as Tom Harkin believed, and many thoughtful people, that by voting the way we did, we were getting the United Nations and the inspections in place and we could--and the president made his word to us that they would build that coalition and do it properly. The president, in my judgment, broke his word to us and to the American people and we have a difficult situation on our hands.



8. John Kerry Announcement Speech, 9/2/2003


Republican Video:


I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.


Kerry: Wrong to rush to war without international support and a plan to win

First, we must restore a foreign policy that is true to our ideals. We will defend our national security and maintain a military that is the strongest armed force on earth. But if I am president, I will never forget that even a nation as powerful as the United States of America needs to make some friends in this world, and I will do that. Overseas, George Bush has led and misled us on a course at odds with 200 years of our history. He has squandered the goodwill of the world after September 11th, and he has lost the respect and the influence that we need to make our country safe. We are seeing the peril in Iraq everyday. I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right, but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition and with no plan to win the peace. So long as Iraq remains an American intervention and not an international undertaking, we will face increasing danger and mounting casualties. Being flown to an aircraft carrier and saying, "Mission accomplished" doesn't end a war.



9. MSNBC Hardball, 1/6/2004


Republican Video


MATTHEWS: Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am


Kerry Video: Opposed to the way President Bush took the country to war

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.


The Whole Story

John Kerry’s Principled, Consistent Approach to Saddam Hussein and Iraq


FIRST THINGS FIRST – WIN THE REAL WAR ON TERROR AT HOME AND ABROAD


Bush administration made enormous mistake by letting al-Qaeda escape

The Taliban are not the target. They were a collateral target. The target is and always has been al-Qaeda. And al-Qaeda, a thousand strong, was gathered in one single mountain area, Tora Bora, and we turned to Afghans, who a week earlier had been fighting for the other side, and said, "Hey, you guys go up there in the mountains and go after the world's number-one terrorist and criminal who just killed 3,000-plus Americans." I think that was an enormous mistake. I think the Tora Bora operation was a failed military operation, which resulted then in Anaconda, which also did not do the job. And the fact is that the prime target, al-Qaeda, has dispersed and in many ways is more dangerous than it was when it was in the mountains of Tora Bora.


Bush is overfocused on Iraq

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a likely presidential candidate, said the tape "certainly underscores the incompleteness of that task." Alluding to criticism from some Democrats that Bush is able to focus on only one task at a time, Kerry said the bin Laden tape "certainly heightens suspicions that they are overfocused on one and made mistakes on the other."


Priority is to enlist global community in war against terror

BORGER: Do we have any information that chemical and biological attacks were part of this ? We got news this morning about the crop-dusting manuals.

Sen. KERRY: No, no, no, n--at least I don't and not to my knowledge do any of my colleagues. But it is something that we know--for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable.


Cannot let Iraq hide war against al-Qaida

I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat. But I also think--and--and this is another very--you haven't heard this, I think, in the course of the last week, we cannot allow this discussion of Iraq to hide the original purpose of our mobilization, which is Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, and we particularly cannot allow it to shift off of the debate in this country a huge number of unattended issues. Our economy is hurting badly.



CONTINUE TO PROSECUTE THE INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO DISARM HUSSEIN


Coalition and world support is the “hammer” to persuade Hussein

O'REILLY: How would you put enough pressure on him to open up inspections again?

KERRY: Well, I'll reinvigorate that process as step number one, and I think the administration is now suddenly starting to move in that direction. I think you have to work our allies sufficiently to pull that component of the effort back together. But the second thing I would do, and I wouldn't hesitate to do it, is back opposition more openly, and do it in a way that begins to put a counterinsurgency in the country itself... The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of synch with the times. He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable.

O'REILLY: But I -- you know, I still don't see the hammer that's going to convince him to open anything up.

KERRY: The hammer, ultimately, will be the evidence that we uncover as we go further down the trail that shows his support for terrorism and begins to build the coalition even more strongly.


Threat not imminent and has not grown in years

Kerry told the Globe in an interview that Iraq poses a threat with potential weapons of mass destruction, but none greater than it has posed for years and not one that had to be addressed with a congressional debate in the two months before an election. "You can play that card maybe once; I'd be very wary of trying to play it again," Kerry said late Friday between his meetings and a speech to an Army social group.


Failure of diplomacy compounded problem in Iraq

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that "a failure of diplomacy of a massive order" by the Bush administration has left the country on the brink of war with Iraq, with an unnecessarily small group of fighting partners, facing criticism from the United Nations and longstanding allies, and without the strongest possible support of the American people. … "It's the way they have conducted the diplomacy that has compounded this problem, split the UN, split the NATO, left the world wondering with questions, engaged in a more preemptive effort than was necessary," Kerry said. "We could have moved from a position of strength, in my judgment, and I think it represents a failure of diplomacy of a massive order, and that is what war is: War is the failure of diplomacy."


Heavy-handed approach will force U.S. to carry burden alone

“All of us know that just days from now our country may be at war with Iraq. If war comes then we must and will unite behind the brave young Americans who are risking their lives. I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone.” <3/14/03, Speech to the California State Democratic Convention>


Must go through diplomatic and inspection process

MATTHEWS: Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can we get this guy to accept inspections of his weapons of mass destruction, potentially, and get past a possible war with him?
KERRY: Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today...
MATTHEWS: Call his bluff.
KERRY: Well, if it is a bluff. I think you have to begin there, no matter what. Whether Saddam Hussein began that process today or we begin it, you have to put the challenge of the inspections on the line. Why? Because that's the outstanding issue unresolved from the war.


Kerry calls for careful diplomacy on wide range of issues including Iraq

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I agree with you. … I think we've all reached a judgment that obviously the United States has to protect our national security interests. And we have to do what we think is right. I do think the European demonstrations are larger than just Iraq. I think they're concerned about other issues, like global warming. They're concerned about proliferation. They're concerned about -- I mean, there are a whole host of issues. So I think it's a more confused bag than just Iraq, but I think they're wrong on Iraq. I mean, plain and simply, the United States will have to do what we need to do, and our best judgment to protect our national security. And quite frankly, if we do what we need to do, it will also wind up protecting Europe. … I think there's a certain amount of backlash from all of our success. What we need to do is manage that effectively. And I think some of the other initiatives that we haven't been frankly been very good on, like global warming, are not handling it very effectively.

Kerry wants Saddam disarmed in the right way

I want the same thing the president of the United States wants. I want Saddam Hussein held accountable. But I want it done in a way that builds the maximum amount of support in our country and particularly, hopefully, brings other nations to the effort.



STRENGTHEN THE HAND OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN NEGOTIATING WITH HUSSEIN


Look for unity

I think that what Senator Daschle and all of us are in favor of is putting before the Congress something that could get a 100-to-nothing vote, something that says to the United Nations, 'Look, we are really serious about this, and we're all behind the effort to try to seek a consensus on dealing with Saddam Hussein.'



DON’T RUSH TO WAR: FORCE THE PRESIDENT TO DEMONSTRATE AN IMMINENT THREAT AND GAIN THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


Bush failed to level with American people on war

"They are really breaking a bond with the American people by proceeding so hell-bent-for-leather, we've-got-to-go, no matter what," he said, "rather than doing the proper kind of diplomatic background of education that gives them legitimacy." … Kerry argued that the Bush administration must try harder to build a consensus among world leaders before trying to topple the Iraqi regime. He said Bush also should bolster any case for war by telling Americans why the threat from Hussein is urgent. "I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat," the senator said. "I do not want to tolerate this man, unfettered, unrestricted, developing weapons of mass destruction. But I do not believe the threat is so imminent today that we have to rush to war."


Legitimacy, consent and imminent threat required to go to war

While calling for the United Nations to intensify pressure on Iraq to disarm, Kerry urged Bush to give more time to the U.N. inspections process that the administration has increasingly condemned as inadequate. "The United States should never go to war because it wants to; the United States should go to war because we have to," Kerry said at Georgetown University. "And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action."


U.S. should never go to war without legitimacy and consent

"I know what it is like to fight in a war when you lose legitimacy and consent," Kerry said. "And I believe the United States should never go to war without that legitimacy, without that consent." After a key applause line in Kerry's stump speech -- "The United States of America should never go to war because it wants to; we should go to war because we have to" -- a person in the crowd shouted: "Then why did you vote for it?"


Unilateral action is not a wise first move

MATTHEWS: If the president called you in and briefed you, and said, "As the senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm going to tell you something. Tomorrow morning, we're going in big into Baghdad. We're going to drop 50,000 troops in there. We're coming in with heavy armaments. We're going to take that guy out. We're going to remove that government, put in one that -- that we like, like we did in Afghanistan," what would you say?

KERRY: Tomorrow morning?

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

KERRY: If he was going to do it tomorrow morning?

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

KERRY: I'd say, "I think you're making a mistake, Mr. President, just to do it that way. I think we can do it without that kind of risk or loss of life or with the down side that might occur with respect to other relationships we have in the region." I mean, we have Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the crisis with Israel-Palestinian relations at this moment, the peace process, lack thereof and, of course, the very fragile situation for Jordan. That's just not a wise first move.


Maximize legitimacy by proceeding in a thoughtful way

If you're really making a decision about invading or going to war, there still are unanswered questions that the president himself has not put before us. For instance, Condoleezza Rice, last Sunday, said on national television and again talking with us on the Hill this week that the president himself hasn't decided what he's going to do. There are major questions of intelligence assessments, there are questions of who is going to be there and how much will it cost in the post-effort. I am absolutely prepared to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, as are most of my colleagues, I believe, maybe all of them. But we want to do this in a thoughtful, intelligent way that begins to address to the country many of the concerns people have. And I think that's what we're asking for. Sometimes, process is important, and--and going to war, I think you want to build the maximum amount of legitimacy. I think we will do it and can do it, and I have great agreement with John McCain about the capacity of the United States to do this. But let's do it in a way that maximizes our ability to be successful and minimizes the misunderstandings, the dissent and confrontation here at home.


Kerry would have preferred giving diplomacy a better opportunity

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?
SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.



GO TO WAR WITH A PLAN TO WIN THE PEACE


Biggest challenge is getting out of the mess

"The United States of America . . . has had some of the weakest diplomacy that we've ever seen in the history of the nation," said Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, in response to a question before more than 500 people at the Commonwealth Club of California. The biggest challenge facing the nation now, he said, is "how you get out of the mess the president has created."


Come together to build a stable Iraq

We have got to come together as never before to build a stable Iraq. Not just to finish the mission, but to remind the world that a shared endeavor can bring the world closer toward peace. … Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists. I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.


President spent months zigzagging

”With our soldiers dying on a daily basis, the President needs to change course. But rather than putting in place a real plan, he has spent months drifting and zigzagging. Rather than immediately building a real coalition, he has fought to keep unilateral control over reconstruction and governance. … Our troops are paying the highest price - and America's hard working families shouldn't have to subsidize President Bush’s failure or line the pockets of corporations like Halliburton trying to make a fast buck in Iraq.


Strategy to win the peace takes the target off out troops

“The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.


President broke his word to go to war properly

The president of the United States had the inherent authority of the presidency. And if he wanted to go, he would have gone and could have gone anyway merely to protect and defend the interests of the United States. And the fact is in the resolution that we passed we did not empower the president to do regime change, we empowered him only with respect to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. … I believed, as Joe Biden believed, as Hillary Clinton believed, as Tom Harkin believed, and many thoughtful people, that by voting the way we did, we were getting the United Nations and the inspections in place and we could--and the president made his word to us that they would build that coalition and do it properly. The president, in my judgment, broke his word to us and to the American people and we have a difficult situation on our hands.


Bush squandered goodwill and lost respect

First, we must restore a foreign policy that is true to our ideals. We will defend our national security and maintain a military that is the strongest armed force on earth. But if I am president, I will never forget that even a nation as powerful as the United States of America needs to make some friends in this world, and I will do that. Overseas, George Bush has led and misled us on a course at odds with 200 years of our history. He has squandered the goodwill of the world after September 11th, and he has lost the respect and the influence that we need to make our country safe. We are seeing the peril in Iraq everyday. I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right, but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition and with no plan to win the peace. So long as Iraq remains an American intervention and not an international undertaking, we will face increasing danger and mounting casualties. Being flown to an aircraft carrier and saying, "Mission accomplished" doesn't end a war.


Kerry believed that Bush took us to war the wrong way

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.



SHARE THE BURDEN AT HOME AND ABROAD


Should have had more people share the costs

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who voted for the use of force against Iraq but criticized Bush for a rush to war, stressed that the U.S. must now reach out to countries such as France and Germany in the international community that opposed the war. "I never doubted our capacity to go in and kick Iraq's and Saddam Hussein's butt," said Kerry. "What I wish was we'd had more people involved to share the costs. I want to see us bring people in still."


Become stronger at home as we rebuild abroad

That is our mission. and as we come at it, as this administration makes plans to build schools in Iraq, to build roads in Iraq, to replace schoolbooks in Iraq, to build hospitals in Iraq, we come here today and say to them, as correct as it is to finish the job in Iraq, it is time for this administration to begin the job here at home in the United States of America,'' Kerry said.


Rebuilding more difficult because of failed diplomacy

"President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post-9-11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us - both the military defeat (of Saddam) and the rebuilding of Iraq - decidedly more expensive in every sense of the word," Kerry said.


Kerry was unwilling to give president a blank check

“The way we help the soldiers and they way we help them win this is to be smart about who’s participating and how we’re spending the money. And I’m not going to give the president a blank check to pile debt on top of our children yet again, build the deficit up, because he’s unwilling to ask for shared sacrifice in America. … I’m prepared to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. But I want to spend the money smart. I don’t want to spend 87 billion dollars, when it comes from the average American, when it ought to be coming from the wealthiest Americans instead of President Bush’s tax cut, which is unfair and unaffordable.

”


There should be a shared sacrifice in effort

Sen. KERRY: Well, Senator Biden and I are introducing a effort to try to link the $87 billion to the reduction of the Bush tax cut at the high end, and we're doing that as a matter of shared sacrifice. We believe that the American people expect that if--if we're going to have to ante up money additionally in order to safeguard our troops and get this job done, that there should be a shared sacrifice in America, and I believe that.

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Conventional Wisdom: Adding FACTS to the Bush Spin
"One thing you won't hear from the Bush-Cheney campaign this week is anything positive. They can't talk about the issues, because they have no plan for the future. They can't talk about their record, because it's riddled with failure. So they keep firing off intentionally misleading attacks to distract from all the things Bush and Cheney dropped the ball on over the past four years," - Kerry campaign spokesman, Chad Clanton.

Bush Says Kerry Cut Intelligence:
“At a time when the men and women of our intelligence community are working hard to anticipate the moves of a shadowy new enemy, we cannot trust the presidency to someone who has a record of supporting deep cuts to our nation's intelligence agencies.”

Recycled and Wrong

The Washington Post, among others has already called this charge wrong in March. It was widely known that the intelligence budget was overridden with pet projects and pork and was no longer appropriate to the intelligence tasks at hand. The nation was shifting from the cold war to a transnational threat involving terror, drug traffickers and international crime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And at any rate, a resolution cutting defense by exactly the same amount was introduced and adopted the same day Kerry proposed his.


>> Washington Post: Republican Criticism on Kerry Intel Record is Wrong. “President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would ‘gut the intelligence services,’ and one that had no co-sponsors because it was ‘deeply irresponsible.’ In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have ‘gutted’ intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting. The $1.5 billion cut Kerry proposed represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on unspent, secret funds that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency ‘without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress’ The NRO, which designs, builds and operates spy satellites, had accumulated that amount of excess funds.”


>> Intelligence agencies; in particular the NRO, were being mismanaged.
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency in charge of the nation’s spy satellites, was embroiled in controversy because of a $300 million land deal. According to the Washington Post, The NRO “bought almost 14 acres more than needed for its controversial new $ 304 million, four-building headquarters complex in the Westfields development near Dulles International Airport …. NRO, which designs, procures and manages intelligence satellites, planned to use the surplus Westfields acreage to build two additional office buildings that could be sold or leased to its contractors. The only way the NRO could buy the land it wanted was to purchase additional land, so the developers who owned it could get the profit they wanted. … CIA-Pentagon investigation begun in August found that the NRO had failed to disclose the cost of the headquarters to Congress and found it was 30 percent bigger than the organization needed for its 2,190 employees and nearly 1,000 contractor personnel. The Westfields developer got NRO to purchase roughly eight additional acres because the spy satellite agency planners insisted they had to build and own the complex themselves. They refused to allow the developer to construct and rent the buildings to NRO under a long-term lease. Therefore, selling the land was the only way the developer would make money from the NRO deal.”


>> Mismanagement resulted in $1 billion in unspent funds.
In Senate hearings in 1996, Sen. Arlen Specter announced: “he failure of NRO officials to tell either the DCI or Congress that the NRO had accumulated over $1 billion in unused funds--further convinced our Committee that the intelligence community needed greater central direction and accountability.”


>> In September of 1995, a secret billion dollar slush fund was found in the intelligence budget which served as a full employment opportunity for defense contractors.
The White House said yesterday it was "inexcusable" that the top secret agency that manages U.S. spy satellites had reportedly hoarded $ 1 billion in unspent funds. Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta said John M. Deutch, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, had ordered an investigation into how the National Reconnaissance Office managed to stash away so much money without informing supervisors at the Pentagon or Congress. … The unspent funds were discovered after the Senate intelligence committee questioned a luxurious $ 300 million headquarters the NRO was building in a Washington suburb.


>> An amendment just like Kerry’s passed unanimously the same day.
Arlen Specter and Bob Kerrey sought to strip the intelligence budget of its pet projects and pork, and shift our intelligence from the cold war to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The same day that John Kerry proposed to cut the intelligence budget, Senators Specter and Kerrey introduced a similar bill, which passed by a bipartisan voice vote.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says: We cannot trust the presidency to someone who votes to send our men and women in the military to war and then votes against body armor and combat pay for those very same men and women on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a vote that put John Kerry and John Edwards so far out of the mainstream, only two other U.S. Senators shared their position of voting for the war and against the troops.


Kerry voted for shared sacrifice and a plan to win the peace


John Kerry’s Vote on Bush’s bloated supplemental was a principled vote to push the Administration to develop a real plan to take the targets off our troops and insist that the wealthy bear some small chare of the sacrifice by giving up part of the tax cut on the most wealthy. The Bush Administration opposed both these reasonable measures and even threatened to veto his own measure when amendments were proposed to expand reservists’ health care benefits and make part of the $87 billion a loan. Meanwhile, Bush sent troops to war improperly equipped, tried to cut combat pay and has instituted a back door draft preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires.


>> Kerry objected to Bush’s failure to develop a real plan in Iraq. Kerry opposed spending $87 billion -- at the expense of health care, education and domestic priorities here at home -- without a strategy that protects the troops and makes America safer.
“The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.

>> Kerry opposed Bush’s failure to insist on shared sacrifice.
Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans, Bush refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. John Kerry, along with Joe Biden, proposed an amendment to spread the sacrifice.
”I’m prepared to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. But I want to spend the money smart. I don’t want to spend 87 billion dollars, when it comes from the average American, when it ought to be coming from the wealthiest Americans instead of President Bush’s tax cut, which is unfair and unaffordable.”


>> Kerry voted for supplemental funding for our troops $87 billion.
Kerry and Biden’s proposal would have provided the full $87 billion for the troops while at the same time reducing the Bush tax cut from 690 billion dollars over the next ten years to 600 billion dollars over the next ten years. But the Republicans voted against even that.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says Kerry Attacked America’s Allies
John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, but now uses the war as a political punching bag, denigrating the contributions of our allies by asserting that we are "going it alone" when more than 30 nations stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States as we support the new government in Iraq. We cannot trust the presidency to someone who disrespects our allies by calling them "window dressing."

Kerry wants a stronger America that is more respected abroad

This is an absolutely ridiculous charge from a president that has alienated our allies with a go-it-alone strategy in Iraq and on numerous other fronts. Throughout this campaign, John Kerry has talked about making America stronger at home and more respected abroad by returning America to a real leadership role in the world. The Bush Cheney campaign chops a quote and takes it out of context to put words in Kerry’s mouth.

Kerry called for Bush to involve more of our allies.
HEMMER: The White House would say that dozens of countries are helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged with the U.N., as well, how would more international involvement prevent the violence we're seeing today?
KERRY: Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren't there in the beginning when we went in, and they're not carrying the cost of this war. What we need is, the war -- the occupation at this point, what we need is a much broader involvement. And I think that the overall foreign policy of the United States has a profound impact on that. How we deal with North Korea, how we deal with proliferation, how we deal with AIDS, how we deal with global warming, how we deal with the United Nations itself. It's all cumulative. And the cumulative bank account of the United States of goodwill and of good feeling has really been exhausted by this administration's arrogant attitude.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says“Amid a changing threat to our homeland, we cannot trust the presidency to someone who blocked and delayed efforts to streamline our nation's homeland security efforts because of the objections of a handful of union bosses. Kerry has also attacked the Patriot Act that is giving law enforcement the same tools to fight terrorists that they have long had to fight drug dealers.”

Bush opposed Homeland Security Agency; Stonewalled 9-11 Commission


John Kerry argued for intelligence reform to address growing threats of terrorism, drug dealing and international crime during the last administration. And it was Bush, not Kerry and Democrats who blocked the adoption of a Homeland Security Agency. Even today, Bush has failed to address key intelligence shortcomings and even resisted reforms suggested by the bipartisan 9-11 commission.


Kerry argued for streamlining and reforming law enforcement long ago. Its one of the things he supported in his book “The New War.”
“Kerry, former chairman and, until recently, ranking Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, warns that while Americans obsess about street crime and random violence, we overlook the far greater threat posed by global criminals and terrorists… What's needed to stop global criminals, Kerry argues, is global cooperation, "a revolution in the way we conceive of every aspect of the law, from jurisdiction to punishment."


From Day One, Bush Opposed Creating a Homeland Security Department. Bush stalled the creation of a new cabinet agency for months, opposing it until it became apparent that legislation creating it would pass Congress in mid-2002.


Bush Initially Opposed Independent 9-11 Commission. Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a “statement of policy” that read “…the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review .” After “the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses , the administration reversed its stance.”


Even today they are failing to provide local law enforcement with the tools they need to protect our communities. Federal fingerprint databases still aren’t merged, so terrorists and other violent criminals may be able to sneak into the country. CIA, FBI and other agencies still aren’t sharing intelligence with one another. The FBI is only half finished with terrorist list database. And ninety percent of cities have not received funding.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says John Kerry Backed Saddam
We cannot trust the presidency to someone who makes decisions on matters of national security by holding up his finger to determine which way the political winds are blowing. John Kerry has more positions on Iraq and the War on Terror than anyone can count. The world is more safe and America is more secure because Saddam Hussein is out of power, but John Kerry can't even give a straight answer on whether he believes the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was right or wrong.

Kerry supported regime change in Iraq; opposed Bush’s failed strategy

Kerry is glad Saddam is gone from power, and has strongly supported efforts to remove him for years. He voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq but believes that we don’t need a President who will walk away from the world or a President who will go it alone. In fact, it was Dick Cheney Chose to Leave Saddam in Power in 1991. He told NBC’s Meet the Press that he did not regret failing to take out Saddam in 1991, Cheney responded: “I don’t, Tim. It was—and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign: Higher Taxes

We cannot trust John Kerry on taxes when he opposed tax relief for moms and dads, married couples, and small businesses, including an attempt to kill marriage penalty relief for couples earning less than $50,000 per year.

Kerry calls for deeper middle class tax cuts than Bush


John Kerry strongly supports the sensible tax cuts for the middle class such as repealing the marriage penalty, keeping the child tax credit and tax relief for small. John Kerry will repeal the tax giveaways to the rich and close the offshore loopholes which allow American companies not to pay their fair share. In fact, the Associated Press has reported that “Kerry called for deeper tax cuts for the middle class than proposed by Bush”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says Everything is Fine
We cannot trust the economy to John Kerry's pessimistic view of America. America's economy is strong and getting stronger but John Kerry is talking about the Great Depression. While consumer confidence is approaching its highest point in two and a half years, John Kerry has been campaigning across the country on a platform of pessimism and misery. Kerry even reinvented the misery index so he could tell middle class families that life was better under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.

No matter how you look at it, middle-class families are being squeezed by the Bush economy. The Republican denials show they still don't get it.

>> The traditional Misery Index got 3.1 points better under Clinton and has gotten 3.4 points worse under Bush because of the large increase in the unemployment rate and the rapid inflation we have seen so far this year.


>> The misery index is now higher than it was in 1992 – when George Bush senior lost to Bill Clinton.


>> The new Middle-class Misery Index is an even broader measure of what matters for families -- including the cost of college, personal bankruptcies, and the typical families income. Like the traditional Misery Index, this too has worsened under President Bush.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says Kerry opposes Health Care.
We cannot trust John Kerry's rhetoric on health care, when he has consistently opposed medical malpractice reform. Estimates indicate that frivolous lawsuits cost our economy up to $108 billion per year, but Kerry has spent his time in the Senate blocking commonsense lawsuit reform.

Their rhetoric is wrong because their plan doesn’t work.


Limiting compensation to victims doesn’t lower premiums for doctors. Studies have shown that premiums rise faster and are higher in states with caps. And insurers’ own actions and investments are real cause of malpractice premium hikes. They increased their premiums when the value of their investments dropped. “Since 1975, the data show that in constant dollars, per doctor written premiums—the amount of premiums that doctors have paid to insurers—have gyrated almost precisely with the insurer’s economic cycle, which is driven by such factors as insurer mismanagement and changing interest rates.”


Kerry’s Health Care Plan Rated Best on Cost Control; Will Help Keep Malpractice Premiums Low. John Kerry is the only candidate for President, including President Bush, who has made a priority of both holding down health care costs and expanding access to care. In a recent, non-partisan survey conducted by the National Journal, John Kerry’s health care plan was rated the best on limiting government costs related to health insurance. Under Kerry’s proposal, companies and insurers that guarantee a pass-through of the savings to their workers through reduced premiums would be reimbursed for 75 percent of catastrophic costs above $50,000. Kerry will also offer a “technology bonus” as an incentive to health care providers and insurers to update their procedures and switch to electronic records. Moreover, the Kerry plan will hold down malpractice premiums by requiring an impartial review of a claim before an individual could file suit and by eliminating punitive damages except in egregious cases.


Kerry addresses frivolous lawsuits: The Kerry plan will substantially reduce meritless claims and enhance opportunities to resolve claims fairly without protracted litigation. His plan will require an impartial review of a claim before an individual could file suit and by eliminate punitive damages except in egregious cases.


For four years, the Bush administration has failed to address health care costs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says Kerry Blocked Energy Bill
We cannot trust our energy resources to a candidate who uses energy prices for political attack, but obstructs passage of a comprehensive national energy policy.

Bush has no plan to address rising energy prices or achieve energy independence

Kerry opposed Bush’s Energy in part because he is bent on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve – a measure that would sacrifice a pristine wildlife reserve, and do nothing to further the goal of energy independence. The oil in ANWR would not be available for ten years and the Bush Administration’s own Energy Information Administration stated that drilling for oil in ANWR “would likely have little impact on world oil prices.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bush Campaign Says Kerry Opposes Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.
Kerry has consistently opposed measures to strengthen America's families, including his support for the distribution of the morning after pill in schools without parental notification, and his opposition to the Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors.

John Kerry opposed Bush’s special interest bonanza for drug companies.


>> John Kerry Has Worked in the Senate to Make Prescription Drugs Affordable. A member of the prestigious Health Care Subcommittee, John Kerry has a long record in the Senate of making prescription drugs more affordable. Most recently, Kerry spoke out against a Medicare prescription drug measure in the Senate which he believes will leave gaps in coverage and “could prompt employers to drop retirees from their health care benefits.”


>> Kerry Opposed the Prescription Drug Deal Because It Was a Windfall for the Drug Companies. “The Medicare prescription drug benefit deal reached by Republicans is a raw deal for America’s seniors and a big windfall for the big drug companies. It makes a dangerous move towards Medicare privatization with new provisions to force seniors into private HMOs and higher premiums for those who stay in traditional Medicare. It undermines benefits for those who have retiree coverage today and does nothing to contain the spiraling costs of prescription drugs. And at the same time they are hurting seniors, the Bush Administration manages to reward prescription drug companies with a plan that will increase their profits by $139 billion. Hard-pressed seniors need a real affordable prescription drug benefit that puts them ahead of the multi-billion dollar drug companies that fund George Bush's campaign. This is the wrong prescription.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says Kerry Gets “F” >From NRA
We cannot trust the presidency to someone whose views changed depending on the day and the audience. Kerry told Wisconsin voters how he likes to go hunting with his "trusty 12-gauge double-barrel," but he received an "F" from the National Rifle Association. Kerry said in Iowa that he is personally opposed to abortion, and believes that "life does begin at conception," but he has received a 100% rating from NARAL. Kerry told voters in the West that he likes "a lot of parts" of the Healthy Forests bill, but he told Democratic primary voters that the law took "a chainsaw to public forests."


Kerry learned to hunt with his family as a young man and believes that we need to pass these traditions of respect for the environment and nature to the next generation. He’s carried a gun in defense of a country and believes the second amendment protects the right to own firearms. He’s also fought crime and served as a prosecutor, and has seen what irresponsible gun use can do to communities. He understands that the right of gun ownership comes with the responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. His voting record reflects these values.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush Campaign Says Kerry is Out Of Touch
Kerry recently told supporters in New York City that the star-studded hate fest that they saw represented the "heart and soul of our country." But he has refused to release the tape of that performance to show the rest of America what he believes the "heart and soul of our country" looks and sounds like.

Bush has no positive message; he has run the most negative, desperate and divisive campaign in years


George Bush is the one who used images of flag-draped coffins at Ground Zero in his television ads. He is the one who sold photos of

[loathesomeshrub]

1. Why is this so heard to read?

[papau]

2. Good Question - It seems to assume one has seen the video

But I reject RNC mailing on my computer so I do not have the emailed ad that it referes to - nor have I seen it on local media.

[dArKeR]

3. Kerry goes to war to put the record straight - SA

The battle over John Kerry's Vietnam War record, which has emerged in recent weeks as crucial to this year's desperately close presidential election campaign in the United States, reached a critical moment on Friday.

An anti-Kerry campaign by a group of navy veterans -- who are accusing the Democratic candidate of embellishing his accounts of combat and inflicting wounds on himself to win medals -- has been revealed to be riddled with inconsistencies and supported by wealthy Texans with links to the George Bush family and the president's long-serving political mastermind, Karl Rove.

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=120812